Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Quasi Judicial Hearings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Attorney Briefs Council on Quasi‑Judicial Hearings, Ex Parte Contacts and Recusal Rules
Summary
City counsel reviewed legal standards for quasi‑judicial land‑use hearings, discussing notice, due process, ex parte communications, bias versus conflict of interest, and how campaign contributions factor into recusal analysis.
City counsel told council members that quasi‑judicial hearings — where the council acts as the final trier of fact and its decision is appealable to court — require heightened procedural protections, including public notice, an opportunity to be heard and decisions based only on evidence introduced at the hearing.
Counsel said ex parte communications about a pending application — such as privately reviewing plans or receiving information outside the hearing process — can create a perception of bias and should be disclosed and typically result in recusal. Counsel explained that a conflict of interest differs from bias: a conflict requires a direct pecuniary or financial interest in the matter, and, if present, the council member must disclose and not participate.
On campaign donations, counsel said current state law permits campaign contributions that comply with the Fair Campaign Practices Act and that such lawful donations do not by themselves require recusal. Counsel added that "there can be extraordinary or extreme situations" but that ordinary, lawfully made contributions will not typically meet the legal threshold for disqualification.
Council members asked practical questions about when ex parte rules begin; counsel answered that the bright line is generally when an application is submitted to the land‑use office, though earlier contacts are discouraged. Counsel recommended forwarding constituent or developer contacts to staff so communications can be included in the record when appropriate. Counsel advised members who think they may have a conflict or bias to consult counsel in advance and to make an on‑the‑record disclosure and recusal if needed.
Counsel also noted that the city code and charter define conflict of interest and that the charter treats a refusal to vote (absent a disclosed conflict) as a yes vote for purposes of the record. Counsel said members who recuse themselves for bias or conflict should leave the room and not participate in the hearing.
Several council members asked for clear notification when applications are filed; counsel agreed staff could provide submission dates and said staff already publishes a map and email notices for pending developments.
