California Appellate Court Rules Members of City Council Have to Listen Before Voting

The Los Angeles Times offers Listen Up, Politiicans: It's Ears Before Ayes, which begins: "Striking a blow for anyone who has ever been rudely treated by government officials, a state appellate court ruled Thursday that city council members must actually listen when their constituents make official appeals before them." You can find the court ruling here. Here is a snippet:

We do not presume to tell the city council how it must conduct itself as a legislative body. Here, however, the city council was sitting in a quasi-judicial role, adjudicating the administrative appeal of constituents. A fundamental principle of due process is “he who decides must hear.” (Vollstedt v. City of Stockton (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 265, 276.) The inattentiveness of council members during the hearing prevented the council from satisfying that principle. (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1024 [“due process requires fair adjudicators in administrative tribunals”]; Henderling v. Carleson (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 561, 566 [takes as a given that administrative decision maker listens at hearing] disapproved on another point by Frink v. Prod (1982) 31 Cal.3d 166, 180; Chalfin v. Chalfin (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 229, 233 [fact finder must listen to the evidence before making a decision].) Sitting as “judges” in the appeal, the council was obligated to pay attention as is the obligation of sitting members of the judiciary. (Accord, In re Grossman (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 624, 629 [“Members of the bar have the right to expect and demand courteous treatment by judges . . .”]; Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (B)(4) (American Bar Association 2000) [“A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity . . .”].) The council’s distraction with a multitude of other things during the hearing is especially troubling because it was reversing its own zoning administrator who took great care to reach his decision. It is not our province to insist that the council members consider every word of every witness. Good judgment and common sense are entitled to prevail. (Vollstedt v. City of Stockton, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 276.) Here, however, the tape shows the council cannot be said to have made a reasoned decision based upon hearing all the evidence and argument, which is the essence of sound decision making and to which LSHS was entitled as a matter of due process. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org