Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Procedure Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board records 30-day continuances after appellant cites illness; members push for clearer rules
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board noted 30-day continuances for three cases after an appellant cited illness and his attorney being out of town. Board members voiced frustration about repeated delays and legal counsel recommended circulating possible rule amendments to clarify secretary authority under Rule 7.1.
The Abatement Appeals Board announced on March 20, 2013 that continuances of 30 days had been granted for cases 6773, 6772 and 6774 after an appellant requested more time. Board staff said the request came from Richard Thomas, who cited illness and that his lawyer was out of town.
Board staff told the panel that a letter from the appellant was included in the meeting packet. "I received correspondence from Richard Thomas requesting an additional 30 days due to illness and the fact that his lawyer was out of town," a staff member said at the meeting.
Legal counsel explained that under Rule 7.1 of the Abatement Appeals Board rules, the secretary may grant a continuance when a written request is received, the secretary has the president's approval and the department does not object. Counsel said the secretary contacted the president and, with no departmental objection, had granted a 30-day continuance consistent with that reading of Rule 7.1, while recommending the board consider clarifying amendments to address ambiguities.
Several commissioners said the matter had "languished" and urged the board to set firmer deadlines. One member warned that removing items from the calendar without considering public responses could raise Brown Act and notice concerns and suggested the board examine procedures so future continuances do not unfairly delay resolution.
A staff member said the request included a production-of-documents component and that document production would likely be tied to the continuance; staff added that the appellant had had months since the first notice of violations to prepare and that it remained the appellant's responsibility to specify needed documents.
The meeting also handled routine business: the board adopted minutes from its Nov. 21, 2012 meeting after an on-the-record motion and later adjourned at 9:23 a.m.
Next steps: counsel said they would circulate possible language to amend board rules to clarify continuance procedures; no rule changes were acted on at the meeting.
