Hi Karen (and community), Thanks for the update on this. That’s fantastic news that Erie would be willing to help out.
I emailed Kady last week to try to set up a Q/A session with the candidates and the current sitting city council. Something like an open forum where we ask our own questions of each other based on the feedback we’ve been getting so far from our constituents. One of the things I mentioned in the email was that many in the community that I’ve spoken with are concerned about various aspects of certain development projects. In her response she talks about the legal requirements for each city council member when they are voting on an issue like this, I’ve quoted her below.
To be clear, I know this project on 119th and Baseline is important to many people. If I’m elected, I’ll have to consider it in a quasi-judicial proceeding, which means I must base my decision only on the evidence and testimony presented during the public hearing. To ensure the process is fair for everyone involved, I can’t share an opinion on it now.
Now that I’ve made everyone abundantly clear on my position, here is Kady’s response:
[BEGIN_QUOTE]
When a development application comes before the City Council, the City Council acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, and the applicant has a constitutional right to Due Process. Due Process requires quasi-judicial decisions to be made by unbiased officials based solely on the evidence presented. This means that Council members must act like judges:
* They must base their decision only on the evidence, testimony, and record presented at the public hearing on the application.
* They must maintain impartiality and an open, unbiased mind about the application until all evidence is presented.
* They must avoid ex parte communications (discussions outside the public hearing) about the application.
During your campaign, members of the public may ask your views on pending or expected development applications. If you take a firm position on those applications or promise to vote a certain way, that may create legal and ethical issues if you’re elected and must vote on the matter.
Due Process and Bias: Applicants and affected parties have a constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker. If you take a position on a land-use application before the public hearing, your impartiality could be questioned. Even the appearance of bias can violate Due Process and potentially lead to your recusal.
Recusal: If campaign statements indicate you have already made up your mind on a development application, you may be required to recuse yourself, which means you wouldn’t be able to participate in the hearing or vote on the application once in office.
Legal Challenges: An applicant or other affected party could challenge the City Council’s decision in court, claiming the hearing was unfair because one or more Council members were biased and had prejudged the application. Courts in Colorado and elsewhere have overturned decisions when officials showed bias before the hearing.
If you are asked about a specific land-use application, you may want to consider replying along the following lines: “I know that project is important to many people. If I’m elected, I’ll have to consider it in a quasi-judicial proceeding, which means I must base my decision only on the evidence and testimony presented during the public hearing. To ensure the process is fair for everyone involved, I can’t share an opinion on it now.”
[END_QUOTE]
Now, I’m not denying that this is the legal reality that we’re facing, but it does seem strange to ask a group of representatives elected by the people to be unbiased between the town they represent and an outside developer who wants to put up a new apartment complex.
This seems to put us political candidates in a bit of a tricky position, having to speak like, well, politicians. But given the legal constraints around the process of annexation and development approval, it seems like it forces us to walk a fine line between maintaining an open mind but also communicating to the people I’m talking with that I’m generally against paving paradise to put up parking lots (Please see above disclaimer, I will always judge a case based on facts and testimony presented in a hearing).
If I’m fortunate enough to be elected, I’m expecting there to be even more red tape designed to tie the hands of the city council, or at the very least tilt things in favor of those with deeper pockets.
Have you, in your experience with previous city council votes, seen this to be an issue? How can city council members stay true to their environmental beliefs and serve the people’s opinion, while also not be in violation of the law? How concerned should those of us who are running be about making possible offhand comments that might come back to bite us later?
I mean, honestly it feels like the law is working to restrict any decision that the people might make.
Excellent questions and observations, Mike. As a journalist, my spidey senses went on high alert when I read that the city manager is actually giving you language about how you can speak to potential voters who ask about land use applications. I sent an email to Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, asking him to weigh in on this and the other issues you raise. I'll report back what I hear.
Jeff also said he doesn't know if there are examples of elected officials being sued or having to recuse themselves from quasi-judicial matters because of comments they made as candidates.
The Lafayette City Council and Mayor owe us an explanation about what the hell they are doing with this property and why. Clearly there is no intention to listen to the voices of our residents. Green lighting this development could put them at odds with the entire community and reveal that they are certainly not there to represent us and our best interests. What is the true motivation for such a move? Where is the stewardship? When something doesn’t make sense, it always means there is information missing. Council has some explaining to do. This decision will have major and irreversible implications for our city. I’m very glad there is an election so imminent. We need new leadership.
Thank you for this comprehensive update. I will use the resources you've provided to speak with all the parties involved. You're right....it will take all of us supporting the property at 119th and Baseline to become protected open space for our community. I appreciate you 🙏
Hi Karen (and community), Thanks for the update on this. That’s fantastic news that Erie would be willing to help out.
I emailed Kady last week to try to set up a Q/A session with the candidates and the current sitting city council. Something like an open forum where we ask our own questions of each other based on the feedback we’ve been getting so far from our constituents. One of the things I mentioned in the email was that many in the community that I’ve spoken with are concerned about various aspects of certain development projects. In her response she talks about the legal requirements for each city council member when they are voting on an issue like this, I’ve quoted her below.
To be clear, I know this project on 119th and Baseline is important to many people. If I’m elected, I’ll have to consider it in a quasi-judicial proceeding, which means I must base my decision only on the evidence and testimony presented during the public hearing. To ensure the process is fair for everyone involved, I can’t share an opinion on it now.
Now that I’ve made everyone abundantly clear on my position, here is Kady’s response:
[BEGIN_QUOTE]
When a development application comes before the City Council, the City Council acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, and the applicant has a constitutional right to Due Process. Due Process requires quasi-judicial decisions to be made by unbiased officials based solely on the evidence presented. This means that Council members must act like judges:
* They must base their decision only on the evidence, testimony, and record presented at the public hearing on the application.
* They must maintain impartiality and an open, unbiased mind about the application until all evidence is presented.
* They must avoid ex parte communications (discussions outside the public hearing) about the application.
During your campaign, members of the public may ask your views on pending or expected development applications. If you take a firm position on those applications or promise to vote a certain way, that may create legal and ethical issues if you’re elected and must vote on the matter.
Due Process and Bias: Applicants and affected parties have a constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker. If you take a position on a land-use application before the public hearing, your impartiality could be questioned. Even the appearance of bias can violate Due Process and potentially lead to your recusal.
Recusal: If campaign statements indicate you have already made up your mind on a development application, you may be required to recuse yourself, which means you wouldn’t be able to participate in the hearing or vote on the application once in office.
Legal Challenges: An applicant or other affected party could challenge the City Council’s decision in court, claiming the hearing was unfair because one or more Council members were biased and had prejudged the application. Courts in Colorado and elsewhere have overturned decisions when officials showed bias before the hearing.
If you are asked about a specific land-use application, you may want to consider replying along the following lines: “I know that project is important to many people. If I’m elected, I’ll have to consider it in a quasi-judicial proceeding, which means I must base my decision only on the evidence and testimony presented during the public hearing. To ensure the process is fair for everyone involved, I can’t share an opinion on it now.”
[END_QUOTE]
Now, I’m not denying that this is the legal reality that we’re facing, but it does seem strange to ask a group of representatives elected by the people to be unbiased between the town they represent and an outside developer who wants to put up a new apartment complex.
This seems to put us political candidates in a bit of a tricky position, having to speak like, well, politicians. But given the legal constraints around the process of annexation and development approval, it seems like it forces us to walk a fine line between maintaining an open mind but also communicating to the people I’m talking with that I’m generally against paving paradise to put up parking lots (Please see above disclaimer, I will always judge a case based on facts and testimony presented in a hearing).
If I’m fortunate enough to be elected, I’m expecting there to be even more red tape designed to tie the hands of the city council, or at the very least tilt things in favor of those with deeper pockets.
Have you, in your experience with previous city council votes, seen this to be an issue? How can city council members stay true to their environmental beliefs and serve the people’s opinion, while also not be in violation of the law? How concerned should those of us who are running be about making possible offhand comments that might come back to bite us later?
I mean, honestly it feels like the law is working to restrict any decision that the people might make.
Excellent questions and observations, Mike. As a journalist, my spidey senses went on high alert when I read that the city manager is actually giving you language about how you can speak to potential voters who ask about land use applications. I sent an email to Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, asking him to weigh in on this and the other issues you raise. I'll report back what I hear.
Thank you very much for your post!
Jeff responded that it might be OK for the city manager to inform candidates of best practices regarding quasi-judicial proceedings, but he doesn't think anyone can tell a candidate what to say. He recommends consulting this guide from the Colorado Municipal League: https://www.cml.org/docs/default-source/2024-conference-presentations/6-19-24-1045-cml-2024-qj-decision-making.pdf?sfvrsn=ee380f05_2.
Jeff also said he doesn't know if there are examples of elected officials being sued or having to recuse themselves from quasi-judicial matters because of comments they made as candidates.
Thanks for that follow-up, Vicky. I look forward to your report!
The Lafayette City Council and Mayor owe us an explanation about what the hell they are doing with this property and why. Clearly there is no intention to listen to the voices of our residents. Green lighting this development could put them at odds with the entire community and reveal that they are certainly not there to represent us and our best interests. What is the true motivation for such a move? Where is the stewardship? When something doesn’t make sense, it always means there is information missing. Council has some explaining to do. This decision will have major and irreversible implications for our city. I’m very glad there is an election so imminent. We need new leadership.
Thank you for this comprehensive update. I will use the resources you've provided to speak with all the parties involved. You're right....it will take all of us supporting the property at 119th and Baseline to become protected open space for our community. I appreciate you 🙏
Laura W.
I'm glad it's helpful, Laura! Thanks for your support.