Agenda - 04-08-2014 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12 APP64L PROCESS(Part 11) Procedural Guidelines Background In the Commissioners' discussion of the proposed ordinance, some issues arose concerning proper procedure for conducting administrative appeals. One issue was whether testimony should be sworn in administrative appeal and it was suggested that sworn testimony should be the standard for these appeal hearings. Fblatedly,there was a question of why testimony is not presently sworn in the potentially dangerous dog appeal hearings offered understate law by an ASAB committee. The County Attorney explained that one reason was that there were no appeals per se of the rulings of this committee but that second step appeals were conducted de novo to SAperior Court. More generally,there seemed to be a concern with what standards should apply in the administrative appeal process to ensure that the process was fair and conformed to due process principles. The question of standards may not have been formally and thoroughly discussed but ultimately it seemed to be a significant concern. A significant outcome of the discussion with Professor Wall and her associate was to clarify some of the different issues entangled in the discussion of standards. As noted in the abstract, she had conferred with some of her S�hool of Government colleagues regarding the issue of standards as well as the personnel who could and/or should be responsible for appeals. There were a number of "take-aways" from the discussion with S�hool of Government staff. One was that testimony should be sworn to ensure that witnesses had an obligation to be truthful in their testimony.There was mention that certain Animal Services staff could become notaries and swear in witnesses at hearings. Another point was that there needed to bean appropriate form of cross-examination. It wasagreed that indirect cross-examination by members of the appeal body combined with an opportunity for rebuttal by the involved parties in their dosing statements,would ensure adequate cross-examination. All believed that this is the preferred approach given the high level of emotion that often characterizes discussion of pets and the distinct possibility that there could be safety concernsfor those involved. Two other notable"take-aways" are closely related. One was that the role of Animal Services staff should be carefully circumscribed, and even more specifically,that they should only be involved in the strictly administrative aspects of appeal hearings, e.g. scheduling and distribution of case files. Any role greater than this administrative role risks conflicts of interest since what essentially is at issue in a