Selma law team trains boards on quasi‑judicial rules: disclosures, evidence and appeal risks

The Town of Selma's law team conducted a training session April 20 for the Town of Selma Board of Adjustment and the Appearance Commission on how to conduct quasi‑judicial hearings, emphasizing impartiality, evidence standards and the risk of appeals if procedures are not followed.

Megan, a member of the town law team, told the boards that quasi‑judicial hearings require members to apply local development regulations to facts in a manner similar to a court proceeding and that the boards act in an adjudicatory role. "This is a decision that's made by a local board," Megan said, and noted the Board of Adjustment handles appeals and variances while the Appearance Commission handles certificates of appropriateness.

The training focused on several recurring topics: avoiding ex parte communications and disclosure requirements; when board members should recuse themselves; the difference between lay and expert witnesses and how to qualify the latter; what evidence is admissible; and the mechanics of findings of fact and appeals.

Chip, the other member of the town law team, warned that undisclosed off‑the‑record conversations in small towns can lead to exclusion of a board from a case and wasted time. "In a small town, churches, you know, out and about, just be careful with that," Chip said, adding that where an undisclosed communication is later discovered it can be grounds to set aside a decision.

Both presenters stressed disclosure as a routine safeguard. Board members may view a site in person, the presenters said, but any site visit should be reported on the record because opposing parties might later seek the member's recusal. "If you do, you need to disclose it," Megan said, explaining that failure to disclose can lead to objections or recusal depending on counsel or a party's response.

On evidence and witnesses, the law team explained that quasi‑judicial hearings require parties to present admissible, material and competent evidence. Lay witnesses may testify about facts they directly observed; expert witnesses must be qualified on the record before their opinion is accepted. "They've gotta tell you what those credentials are and lay that foundation," Chip said. The board chair must recognize a witness as an expert for that testimony to carry weight on appeal.

Presenters cautioned against admitting petitions or letters from absent signatories as evidence because the board cannot cross‑examine the absent signers; such documents may be received but not admitted into the evidentiary record. They also reminded members that staff explains ordinances but that the burden of proof in appeals and variances rests on the applicant.

The presenters discussed voting thresholds: variances require a supermajority (the presenters said the ordinance requires a mathematical calculation based on those present) while most other quasi‑judicial determinations require a simple majority. They recommended addressing each required finding of fact individually during deliberations so the record shows which findings were supported or not.

On appeals, the law team said the decision's appeal clock typically begins when the written decision is delivered to the applicant; presenters said applicants generally have about 30 days to appeal and that such appeals proceed in the superior court. They urged careful preparation of the record — transcripts, exhibits and written findings — because appellate review relies on the completeness and clarity of the hearing record.

Questions from board members covered time limits for testimony, advance disclosure of witnesses and subpoenas, and whether the town can obtain its own experts; the presenters said the board can recess or table a matter to allow additional expert review and that local rules can require exchange of evidence in advance. They advised caution when placing strict time caps on evidentiary presentation, noting that cutting off necessary expert testimony can raise due‑process concerns on appeal.

The meeting concluded with a procedural motion to adjourn that was moved and seconded; the transcript records the motion and a second but does not record a vote count or formal outcome in the transcript.

The training was procedural and advisory; no substantive quasi‑judicial decisions or permit determinations were made during the meeting.