Minutes 12-15-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the UAO. She said the third person on the appeals panel would have the same training but is not a member of the ASAB. Commissioner Rich said she is not comfortable with the fairness of this yet. Annette Moore said this due process offers a notice and an opportunity to be heard. She added that the people on the appeals board should be able to identify what is a violation, and what is not. She said having board members with specialized knowledge has added value. Bob Marotto said an appeals board with expertise is needed. He said it is a combination of members of the ASAB as well as independent appointees. He said having a process by which executive authority can be appealed is necessary. He said it may not be perfect at this time but some codified due process must be put in place, as none exists currently. He said it can be reviewed and amended as needed. He said Carrboro elected not to use this appeal board for actions that arise within Carrboro but rather will maintain its own animal control board. He said Carrboro will review this decision in a year. Bob Marotto reiterated that there are several actions routinely taken by Animal Services that currently have no appeals process. He said this is not acceptable. Commissioner Burroughs referred to the administrative appeals process and said she has had experience when she was on the school board of a dual role. She said with her experiences an attorney was always present and asked if there is a reason why an attorney will not be present. Annette Moore said it is an administrative procedure and therefore is acceptable not to have an attorney. She said the ASAB will have an attorney present, but there procedure is not under the rules of evidence. She said allowing attorneys usually increases the stakes and makes things unnecessarily formal. Commissioner Burroughs clarified that the ASAB would have an attorney to make sure the processes are followed correctly and asked if the other party would not be encouraged to have an attorney. Annette Moore said an attorney can be present and confer with their client, but the clients are encouraged to speak for themselves. Commissioner Burroughs said this sounds similar to the school board process and having been a part of that system for seven years, she believes it can work. Commissioner Jacobs said he too appreciated all of this work and noted that people have strong feelings about their animals. He said he too feels concern about the attorney issue. He said if an animal's life is at stake, the owner is likely to want any and all help they can muster. He said it seems inappropriate for the County to limit what an owner can bring to bear to protect the animal's life. He suggested that different language in the ordinance may offer clarification on the process. Annette Moore asked if Commissioner Jacobs is suggesting similar language to that in the personnel ordinance, which states that a third party can be present, such as an attorney, and confer with the client, but not speak for them. She said anyone could come to the proceeding and confer but cannot participate in the process. Commissioner Jacobs said that seems more reasonable to him rather than a blanket prohibition. Annette Moore said if changing the language is the Board's pleasure, it could be done. Commissioner Dorosin asked if these proceedings are quasi-judicial hearings. John Roberts said no, it is an administrative hearing, but some of the formal rules of judicial process may apply. He said once the appeals process is done, anyone would have access to a court process if need be. Commissioner Dorosin asked if moving on to the court system would be in the form of an appeal of the administrative process. John Roberts said it is does not specifically say that, and it could be in the form of an injunction to get the County to stop the outcome of the administrative process.