Appeals and Mediation: The Discussion Continues

April 8th, 2010 by Brynn Grimley, Kitsap Sun

Brynn Grimley writes:

Yes, I am once again starting a post with a warning about boredom, however, in an attempt to keep you from getting bored, I’m going to try to show why this might be important to you.

First the background:

The Department of Community Development has been looking at removing county commissioners from the appeal process of hearing examiner decisions. Staff is also studying mediation and how it might reduce appeals and/or save time and money.

So why does this matter to you? Well the county is looking to change county code. Depending on which way they go, it could impact you if you ever appeal a hearing examiner decision.

One ordinance they are reviewing would remove the board from the appeal process and the other would keep the board in the process, but clarify its role so there isn’t confusion. (One way to do this could be to hold appeal hearings independent from regular meetings.)

Both options include mediation. The board wants to know associated costs with the changes, but DCD Director Larry Keeton said he won’t know the numbers until after implementation.

But the department believes clarifying the board’s role in the appeals process, or removing commissioners altogether, would simplify the process making it more efficient.

When commissioners hear appeals now they act as judges, abiding by strict rules. The process is costly — $500 appeal fee for the public, plus attorney fees and expert fees — and for the county — staff must dedicate its time to the appeal, on top of other work.

“I think moneywise, it’s a waste of taxpayer money,” Illahee resident Jim Aho said of the current appeal process.

A member of the Illahee Community Club, Aho has participated in more than one appeal denied by county commissioners. His group has appealed commissioner decisions to the next level: Superior Court or the Shoreline Hearings Board. In some instances compromises were reached, but not as a result of the county process.

Aho believes mediation could save money. The county would pay for three hours of mediation, or $300, with the hope that a compromise is reached. (Fees associated with appeals would cover these costs).

The board should remove itself from the appeal process because commissioners don’t have the background to be making legal appeal decisions, Aho said.

The Home Builders Association of Kitsap County believes otherwise. Commissioners should stay in the process because it allows them to see first-hand how their legislative and policy decisions impact the community.

“The majority of the people we talk to think the hearing examiner process works very well,” said Teresa Osinski, HBA government affairs director. “And they’re generally satisfied with that.”

The HBA is worried about costs associated with required mediation, Osinski said. She called the mediation step a “whole other administrative process.”

“We haven’t heard compelling information to support mediation to make it worth the money and the time that will be invested if the county requires this for appeals,” she said.

The commissioners didn’t say much about the ordinances at a meeting Wednesday.

Commissioner Josh Brown suggested the board make a decision at its April 12 meeting about the ordinances, then hammer out concerns from there. He wanted the board’s deliberation to happen in front of the public.

Commissioner Steve Bauer felt differently. He believed the purpose of Wednesday’s meeting was to hammer out concerns, while Monday’s meeting would end the debate that has spanned almost two years.

“Frankly I think we ought to finish it on Monday,” Bauer said. Bauer previously said he supports removing the board from the process and favors mediation.

Commissioner Charlotte Garrido didn’t indicate which way she would vote, except to tell her cohorts that she felt they had more concerns about the process than she did.

http://pugetsoundblogs.com/kitsap-caucus/2010/04/08/appeals-and-mediation-the-discussion-continues/

FAIR USE NOTICE
Information provided here contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such information/material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.