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

Heading: prejudging the issues

Text: RAL next contends that the Board failed to act impartially, thereby denying RAL due process. Specifically, RAL argues that two Board members (Smith and Kenney) impermissibly prejudged the issues, and then dominated the Board's deliberations so that the other Board members deferred to their opinions. RAL relies on two incidents at the hearing to demonstrate Smith and Kenney's bias: (1) a dialogue between the two Board members and RAL's counsel; and (2) a statement by Smith that the variances gradually lessening each year is a longtime goal of the residential community. In the first incident, RAL claims that Smith and Kenney essentially denied the application before hearing any substantive evidence. After delivering his opening remarks, RAL's counsel argued that the one lot/two lot issue was strictly a legal question and did not require any additional evidence outside of the documentation presented by him. Then the following dialogue occurred: SMITH: I don't think it is a legal argument. Do you, Peter? KENNEY: I think there are issues that should be addressed on the one-lot/two-lot. COUNSEL: Well, I'm certainly going to address those, and I think we can do it through legal arguments that show why you are all bound to find that it actually must be considered one property. KENNEY: I don't agree. COUNSEL: Well, you know, I have to object to that statement because you haven't heard my argument, and if you are going to state on the record that you've already made up your mind, that's a problem. KENNEY: No. The facts indicate otherwise, but go ahead. A hearing before a neutral arbiter is a fundamental element of due process. Thus, a board member who publicly expresses a preconceived view or conducts himself as an actual adversary in earlier proceedings is disqualified from presiding over later hearings about the particular case in controversy. [7] Nevertheless, pre-hearing comments by an administrative adjudicator adverse to the position of the applicant are not necessarily grounds for disqualification. [8] When determining whether recusal is appropriate, we focus on whether the board members considered RAL's application in an appropriate process free from corruption, bribery or other illegal means. [9] Here, RAL does not question whether the board members had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the application or if they had a conflict of interest; [10] rather, the principal thrust of RAL's complaint targets statements made by the board members during the hearing. Board members are entitled to have a view of the evidence and express that view during a hearing held to deliberate on the issue. [11] Furthermore, when one considers the Board members' comments in their proper context, they do not adequately demonstrate a preconceived bias regarding the merits of RAL's applications such as would deny due process. As the Superior Court reasoned, the Board members merely disagreed with RAL's adamant argument that the one lot/two lot issue was strictly a legal question and expressed their desire to consider and resolve certain facts before the one lot/two lot issue was ready for legal determination. Finally, Smith's reference to the Board's general goal of reducing the number of variances over time is consistent with the general principle that zoning boards and commissions should not liberally grant variances. [12] Thus, RAL's allegations are insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of the honesty and integrity of administrative adjudicators.