Deputy borough attorney reviews conflicts and ex parte rules at Board of Equalization training

Deputy Borough Attorney Wayne Carey told the Kenai Peninsula Borough Board of Equalization during its annual training that members must promptly disclose any pecuniary conflicts and avoid outside communications about cases.

Carey outlined the board’s duties to provide ‘‘a fair and impartial hearing,’’ to rely on the evidence admitted into the record and to apply the correct burden of proof. He cited the borough code on conflicts (KPB code 2.58) and advised members to ‘‘When in doubt, shout it out,’’ urging disclosure rather than silence when a potential conflict arises.

Why it matters: BOE decisions are frequently appealed to the Superior Court, which relies on the written hearing record. Carey emphasized that the BOE’s written findings must cite specific evidence and legal grounds so appellate courts can review whether the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Carey walked the board through hearing procedure: the chair will read a summary of assessment data, the appellant presents opening evidence, the assessor presents its case, each side may rebut, and the board then issues written findings. He reiterated that the appellant bears the initial burden of proof; if the appellant satisfactorily challenges the assessment, the burden then shifts to the assessor to present credible evidence.

He warned members not to base rulings on personal knowledge obtained outside the hearing (‘‘I have been to that property’’) and reminded them they may not introduce new exhibits that were not properly submitted. Carey also defined prohibited ex parte contact as communication outside the hearing with one party about a case without the other party present and said any such contact must be disclosed to the chair and the BOE attorney so the chair can decide whether the member should participate in that hearing.

On motions and recordkeeping, Carey reviewed common actions the board will take: moving into adjudicative session, motions to uphold or reduce an assessor’s valuation, motions to dismiss when an appellant fails to appear, and the requirement that all decisions be made by majority vote with written findings explaining the evidence relied upon.

Board members raised procedural questions about appellants offering testimony the board considers irrelevant. Carey advised reminding appellants before hearings to present only relevant evidence, allowing the assessor to object to irrelevant testimony and asking the board to rule on those objections during the hearing.

The board acknowledged that conflicts will also be reviewed as a separate agenda item and was reminded to disclose any potential conflicts again at the start of each individual hearing so the record documents the disclosure.