Opinion ID: 2273721
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: hill's participation in the hearing

Text: RAL first contends that Hill's appearance before the Board violated its due process rights. Specifically, RAL claims that because Hill was a Town Commissioner with voting power to approve and remove Board members, his presence at the hearing constituted duress and prevented the Board from acting impartially. RAL claims that it preserved this argument in its response to Hill's motion to intervene when it noted that Hill, in his capacity as a Town Commissioner, voted to appoint and authorize the counsel that represented the Town and the Board in the proceedings. This fact, without more, introduced in the context of why Hill's attorneys adequately represented his interests, insufficiently presented to the Superior Court an argument questioning the Board's objectivity. In addition, RAL did not object to Hill's participation in the Board's hearing. RAL acknowledged at the hearing that Hill wore two hatsas a resident of Henlopen Acres and a commissionerand explicitly stated [h]e can certainly participate. RAL's failure to make a proper objection of bias or request a recusal when it knew the circumstances for potential bias at the time the hearing, waives the claim of error. Even if RAL had preserved its argument on appeal, we would find it to be unpersuasive. Hill's appearance before the Board is distinguishable from the appearances of the officials in Barkey v. Nick [4] and Abrahamson v. Wendell [5] cases relied on by RAL. In Barkey, the city commissioner, possessing the power to appoint members of the zoning board, represented his brother and sister-in-law in their request for a special exception. In Abrahamson, the township supervisor, also possessing the power to appoint members of the zoning board, appeared before the board on behalf of the variance proponents as their contractor. The court found it difficult to believe the supervisor did not in fact have a conflict of interest between personal profit and public duty. [6] Here, Hill did not represent his family members nor did he represent an employer. Hill stated that he was participating in his individual capacity as a property owner in Henlopen Acres and his views were not the views of the town. Therefore, his statements should carry no additional weight than would a statement, comment, evidence, or other information made or given by any other member of the public.