Title
Consider options for an ordinance related to attorney communications with members of the Board of Supervisors and other decision-makers acting in an adjudicative capacity.
Report
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider options for an ordinance of the County related to attorney communications with members of the Board of Supervisors and other decision-makers acting in an adjudicative capacity, and provide direction to County Counsel. Supervisor Alejo is absent on July 9 and since he may be personally impacted by this item, he has requested this matter be continued to a future date. The Board may direct this matter return at the next available meeting date.
SUMMARY:
The U.S. and California Constitutions provide everyone the right to petition their government through their elected and appointed representatives. As a general principle, elected officials' obligation to constituents is to be involved in matters of public importance. These principles and rights do not require elected officials to meet with everyone or to conduct independent investigations of important public matters, but they do require adherence to principles of due process and fair hearings.
Historically, lawyers have been prohibited from Ex Parte contact with judges involving contested matters, such as lawsuits. Ex Parte contact means contact with a decision-maker in a contested matter for the benefit of one side/party where the other side/party is excluded. New Rule 3.5 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers expanded the Ex Parte contact prohibition to include contact with members of administrative bodies hearing matters in an adjudicative capacity, also referred to as "quasi-judicial." Land use and other entitlement hearings are adjudicative proceedings. Such entitlement matters come before the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator, and may include other bodies.
The drafters of Rule 3.5 ...
Click here for full text