Elected Officials often need to navigate through a public hearing called a “quasi-judicial” hearing. A land developer’s re-zoning request is usually such a hearing. Quasi-judicial hearings are like a court trial in at least three very important ways. Like court decisions, Elected Officials’ decisions must be:

1. Based on the evidence in the hearing record;
2. Based on legal criteria in the city or town code; and
3. Made by impartial decision-makers.

1. Evidence in the record. Elected Officials must rely on evidence presented by witness testimony and/or documents in the record, including staff reports. Sometimes the evidence includes citizen emails. Elected Officials can also consider their experiences in life. The key is for Elected Officials to visualize the evidence when making their decision; otherwise, their decision could be considered arbitrary and overturned by a court.

2. Legal Criteria. The Elected Officials must decide whether the applicant met the requirements provided in the relevant law like a county, city or town code. For example, typical rezoning requirements require the applicant to show that: (a) rezoning is needed due to a change caused by growth of the surrounding community; (b) rezoning is consistent with the development of the city; and (3) the rezoning is compatible with adjacent properties. Denying a request for rezoning requires the Elected Officials to point to specific criterion that were not met.

3. Impartiality/Conflicts of Interest. In a quasi-judicial hearing, all the parties appearing before the Elected Officials must have a reasonable assurance that they will be heard and that the Elected Officials will have an open mind on the pending application. Impartiality in quasi-judicial hearings is a fundamental due process issue. If an Elected Official cannot adhere to the evidence and the law, or if a reasonable person could reasonably question an Elected Official’s impartiality, such official should recuse himself or herself or explain why recusal is not necessary.