Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Quasi Judicial Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney trains Keizer Planning Commission on quasi-judicial rules, ex parte disclosure and conflicts
Summary
City Attorney Joseph Lindsey led a procedural training at the Feb. 11 Planning Commission meeting detailing ex parte disclosure, actual and potential conflicts of interest (citing ORS ethics language), bias standards, record-handling, continuances and public-comment logistics ahead of upcoming complex land-use hearings.
City Attorney Joseph Lindsey provided an extended training to the Keizer Planning Commission on Feb. 11 focused on quasi-judicial hearing procedure, disclosure duties and the mechanics of creating a sound administrative record for land-use matters.
"It's called quasi-judicial is because you're acting like a judge," Lindsey told commissioners as he described the qualities expected of decision-makers: honesty, impartiality and judicial temperament. He emphasized that anyone who participates on the record can acquire party status and standing to appeal, so commissioners must disclose outside communications about a case once an application is imminent.
Lindsey explained ex parte contact rules: communications such as neighborhood meetings or newspaper articles are reportable if they occur when a matter is pending or expected. "If you went to that neighborhood meeting, that would be considered an ex parte contact," he said, adding that simply declaring the contact permits parties to rebut the outside information in the hearing.
The attorney reviewed conflicts of interest under state ethics rules, distinguishing actual conflicts (requiring abstention) from potential conflicts (which should be declared). He read a statutory ethics reference on the record when discussing relatives and household members, and advised commissioners to consult staff or the city attorney in close cases.
Lindsey and staff walked the commission through hearing logistics: staff reports open the evidentiary hearing; applicants typically have about 20 minutes to present, opponents often get 5 minutes each, and applicants receive rebuttal time. The commission can leave the record open for written submissions; the transcript notes a common practice of allowing at least seven days for final written arguments and rebuttals prior to final action. He also discussed continuances, waivers to extend the 120-day decision clock, and the difference between closing the hearing and keeping the record open.
On public comment, staff recommended that chairs ask large groups whether a representative can present to avoid redundant testimony while preserving party status for those who wish to be recorded. On media, Lindsey advised commissioners not to speak on behalf of the body and to route inquiries through staff or a PIO.
Lindsey urged transparency to avoid appeals and embarrassment. "Just put it on the record," he said of outside contacts. Commissioners were encouraged to ask procedural questions early and to work with staff on drafting findings and any conditions tied to the development code.
