Opinion ID: 1923882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Fairness of the Hearings

Text: In response to our writ, Narragansett has furnished us with transcripts of the events which transpired when the town council assembled on the evenings of February 27 and March 6, 1974 at the cafetorium of the town's junior high school to listen to the proponents' and opponents' views on the pending legislative proposal. The petitioners assert that a perusal of the transcripts will lead us to the conclusion that the hearings were a sham because comments made by the various members of the council clearly indicate that they were determined to adopt the proposal as is regardless of what issues might have been raised by the opponents. We have read the transcripts and, although the remarks to which petitioners allude are interesting, they fail to show that the issue of the adoption or nonadoption of the ordinance had been resolved long before the first citizen had her say. Public Laws 1928, ch. 1277 provides that the council will conduct a public hearing at which an     opportunity shall be given all persons interested to be heard upon the matter of the proposed ordinance. Obviously, one of the purposes of the public hearing is to learn what the views of the community are so that desirable changes can be brought to the attention of the legislative body before the proposal becomes law. DeLucia v. Town of Jamestown, 107 R.I. 179, 187, 265 A.2d 636, 639 (1970). Property owners, as a result of the published notice, are given the opportunity to express their views with respect to the classifications proposed for their and their neighbor's property. The law, of course, affords many kinds and types of hearings. There are hearings that are judicial, or quasi-judicial, or legislative in nature. The Narragansett Town Council, as it sat and listened to the various views being expressed before it on each of the evenings in question, was participating in a legislative rather than a judicial hearing. Unlike a judicial hearing where issues of fact must be resolved without respect to the personal views of the judge, a legislative hearing may reach a decision based, in part at least, on the preconceptions or personal predilections of the legislators. Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wash.2d 715, 740-41, 453 P.2d 832, 847 (1969). If one reflects for a moment, one quickly realizes that the legislators' success at the polls is often based on their previously announced views or attitudes on issues of public interest. However, notwithstanding such preconceived views, a legislator is still required to adhere to the basic requisites of fairness in matters where a statute mandates a public hearing and not only invites the public to attend but gives it an opportunity to be heard, because [t]he right to be heard implies a reasonable hope of being heeded. Id. at 741, 453 P.2d at 847. The court in the Skagit County case fashioned a test for determining whether a public hearing was conducted in a fair manner. The crucial question to be answered is     whether a fair-minded person in attendance at all of the meetings on a given issue, could, at the conclusion thereof, in good conscience say that everyone had been heard who, in all fairness, should have been heard and that the legislative body required by law to hold the hearings gave reasonable faith and credit to all matters presented, according to the weight and force they were in reason entitled to receive. Id. In applying this test, the court pointed out that while the legislative body, in finally deciding the matter before it, may draw upon all kinds and sources of information, a hearing must not only be conducted in such a manner as to be free of bias and prejudice, but it must also have the appearance of being so. Id. In applying the foregoing principles to the 1974 hearings, we note that the council president, in calling the February meeting to order, acknowledged that there were some inequities in the pending proposal, but, having in mind the interest of the community as a whole, he and his associates thought that the pending ordinance was workable and should be considered as it is. Following the president's initial remarks, one of the councilmen reminded all present that the proposal had been under consideration for almost 5 years, and he referred to the    inordinate amount of effort and money that had been expended over the years to implement the zoning plan. While this councilman remarked that in retrospect the zoning problem might have been approached in a better manner, he thought that the proposed ordinance was infinitely better than the zoning that is on the books, even though the proposal may have some shortcomings. He concluded by promising that if and when the ordinance is passed, he would immediately work for the establishment of a committee whose job would be to formulate a series of amendments that would cure any inequities, omissions, or weaknesses that it contains. Later this councilman clarified his earlier remarks when, in answer to a direct inquiry as to how long the council knew of the existence of the inequities in the pending legislation, he replied: I said that they may exist.    The point I am trying to make is, I am not prepared, nor can I identify any inequities in this.    I regret very much saying that there might be a possibility of changes. The world is changing and this is why we have Section 16 and if I knew the inequities, you can be assured that it would have have [sic] considered before we advertised this.    We wouldn't have spent this kind of money if we had known of any. As the meeting progressed, the president responded to several inquiries that were directed to the council. At one point he alluded to the magnitude of the ordinance and at another point he stated that he and his colleagues felt that there might be some inequities or omissions. During the give and take that went on, Narragansett's senior town solicitor continued to advise them to consider all suggestions offered and make the necessary amendments if the legislators thought the suggestions had merit. He cautioned the council that if the amendments were too big, the proposal would have to be readvertised and a new hearing held on the amended version. It is clear that the sole purpose of the remarks offered by the different members of the council was to make it clear to those present that the legislators were not making any claim that they were blessed with the gift of infallibility. The president emphasized this point by telling the audience: We know that everything drawn up has something wrong with it. Even the Magna Carta had things wrong with it. Our examination of the transcript indicates that comments from the audience, both positive and negative, were received without any display of animosity on the part of the council. The record shows that everyone who sought to address the council was heard in a most courteous manner. Some of those who complained about the effect of the proposed rezoning on their property were reminded that their endeavors could be protected by the nonconforming use provisions of the new ordinance, or they were referred to certain other provisions where relief could be sought from the complaint they described. All governmental agencies, be they on the executive, legislative, or judicial level, should strive for perfection, but none can guarantee its attainment. The thrust of the council membership's remarks was that the work product being discussed, although it may not be perfect, was the best their collective effort could produce. The citizens of Narragansett could ask for nothing more, and this court cannot fault the council's conduct as it tried to make its position known to those landowners who thought that the zoning proposal still needed some improvement.