County attorney reviews quasi-judicial rules for commissioners ahead of hearings

Routt County Attorney Eric (last name not specified in transcript) gave commissioners a detailed briefing on quasi-judicial procedure and ethics at the board’s Feb. 3 work session, ahead of the county’s upcoming hearings.

Eric said commissioners act like judges in quasi-judicial matters and must base decisions only on evidence in the official hearing record. “Your decision has to be based on the record and nothing outside of the record,” he told the board, adding that the record is critical because courts reviewing administrative decisions generally rely only on what was presented at the hearing.

The training reviewed three core due-process elements: adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an evidentiary record that supports written findings. Eric described how ex parte contacts or independent fact‑finding can create reversible errors on appeal and explained the cure procedure: disclose any off‑record communications on the record at the hearing so they can be considered and rebutted. He also walked commissioners through the appeals process under Colorado administrative appeal procedures (referred to in the session as “rule 106 a 4” actions), explaining a judge will review the hearing transcript and written record rather than take new evidence.

Eric emphasized the importance of written findings or on‑the‑record oral findings that can be transcribed, noting judges explicitly cite individual commissioners’ on‑record reasoning in decisions that sustain an administrative body’s action. He encouraged commissioners and planning commissioners to generate a full record and to have staff prepare written findings for any denials or conditioned approvals.

The attorney also covered conflicts of interest and the distinction between clear statutory conflicts (for example, a direct financial interest or fiduciary relationship) and matters that merely create an appearance of conflict. He said his practice is to err on the side of disclosure: commissioners should identify potential conflicts on the record and ask colleagues whether they believe the official can remain impartial. If commissioners cannot, recusal is appropriate; if they can, a recorded disclosure and affirmation that the commissioner can act impartially will usually suffice.

Eric warned that using laptops during hearings to do real‑time internet research can create an appearance problem if the information searched is not offered into the record; he advised commissioners to instead question applicants and staff so that any follow‑up information becomes part of the official record. He also discussed the practical handling of voicemails or phone calls that raise substantive matters: describe the content on the public record, rather than relying on private recollection.

The session included questions from commissioners about how past cases were resolved, how to handle contiguous‑property evidence, and whether prior public meetings and planning commission minutes are part of the record (answer: yes, when they are included in the packet and identified for the record). Eric said the board will revisit these topics in more depth later and plans to provide a fuller presentation at a subsequent meeting.

The training was presented as guidance for preserving due process, avoiding appealable errors and maintaining public confidence in land‑use decisions.