Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Quasi Judicial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Outside counsel trains Lafayette council on quasi‑judicial hearings and risk‑management
Summary
Sam Light of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency told Lafayette councilors that quasi‑judicial land‑use hearings are rules‑based adjudications, not popularity contests, and urged strict protocols on ex parte contacts, written records and deliberations to reduce legal exposure.
Sam Light, deputy executive director and general counsel for the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CRRSA), told the Lafayette City Council on March 24 that quasi‑judicial land‑use proceedings must be treated like adjudicatory hearings rather than political debates.
"Quasi‑judicial proceedings are not popularity contests," Light said, urging elected officials to base decisions only on the record and the legal criteria that apply to the specific application. He described CRRSA’s role as the city’s property and casualty insurance partner and framed the training as a risk‑management briefing for elected officials who serve as decision makers in zoning, special review uses and planned unit developments.
Light outlined several recurring pitfalls and recommended practices. He told councilors to avoid prejudicial pre‑hearing statements and one‑on‑one project discussions with applicants; those outside‑the‑hearing communications, or ex parte contacts, risk disqualification and can undercut the city’s ability to defend a decision in court. He advised that written testimony submitted by a deadline be entered into the record and that applicants be given notice and an opportunity to respond.
On evidence and weight, Light said technical or expert testimony — for example, traffic studies prepared under adopted standards — typically requires more weight than unsubstantiated personal opinion. He recommended that mayors and presiding officers recalibrate public testimony that strays from the legally relevant criteria and remind speakers of time limits and the scope of consideration.
Light also cautioned against council members becoming witnesses in their own hearings. If a member gathers new facts between hearing sessions, Light said the appropriate remedy is to elicit those questions from staff or request a continuance so the new evidence can be formally presented and considered as part of the record.
On deliberations, Light urged councilors to state reasons that tie their votes to specific code criteria and factual evidence. That, he said, creates a record that district courts can review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard and reduces the city’s liability risk.
Council members asked practical questions throughout the presentation, including how to treat petitions circulated online, when ex parte rules take effect, and whether concessions from applicants offered at the dais are binding. Light suggested using staff and the city attorney to clarify legal authority and to draft clear conditions before voting.
The training closed with a reminder that high‑quality process is a product in itself: even a controversial outcome will be more defensible in court if the city follows transparent, fair and criteria‑based procedures.
