►
Description
Presentation for board members on the proper way to conduct quasi-judicial hearings, the sunshine law, public records law and ethics. Recorded July 23, 2013.
A
B
It's
630
I
think
we're
ready
to
start.
Let
me
introduce
myself
I'm
Jimmy
akhavan,
the
city
attorney
this
presentation.
A
lot
of
it
is
going
to
address
Trey's
a
judicial
issues
and
I
understand
that
there
are
some
boards
members
here
from
boards
that
don't
do
quasi
judicial
decisions,
but
I
will
also
cover
public
records,
law,
sunshine
law,
ex
parte
contacts
and
some
other
things
that
I
think
are
relevant
to
your
boards.
I,
don't
know
how
much
any
of
you
know
about
the
quasi
judicial
process
and
about
what
matters
that
I
want
to
address.
B
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
So
it's
important
and
I
want
you
to
understand.
This
is
that
of
a
city
attorney's
perspective.
As
a
member
of
a
quasi
judicial
board,
you
perform
an
essential
governmental
function
that
is
necessary
for
this
city
to
operate
and
that's
very
important,
you're
also
a
public
officer
under
Florida
law.
So
you
have
certain
legal
duties
and
responsibilities.
B
B
B
B
One
of
the
things
you
will
learn
here
is
that
when
you
act
in
a
quasi
judicial
capacity
here,
you're
acting
it's
kind
of
a
combination
of
judge
and
fax
line,
or
fact
finders
a
legal
term
for
whoever
defines
whoever
concludes
with
the
facts
of
the
case
are
based
upon
the
evidence
can
be
a
jury
or
can
be
a
judge
or
in
the
case,
with
quasi
judicial
board.
It's
the
board
itself.
It
determines
what
the
facts
are:
the
legislative
power
of
the
city
of
us
exclusively
with
a
Board
of
Commissioners.
B
B
The
quasi
judicial
board
does
not
have
the
authority
to
enact
ordinances,
in
other
words,
make
policy.
Rather,
it
is
given
the
authority
and
it's
an
important
function
to
decide
how
the
city's
ordinances
apply
to
the
applicants.
The
person
for
businesses
in
specific
cases,
using
the
criteria
contained
in
the
ordinances
so
quasi-judicial
boards
function
like
judges
and
juries.
B
Now
you
may
disagree
as
a
citizen,
and
citizens
can
certainly
disagree
of
what
the
criteria
should
be
and
the
remedy
is
to
go
back
to
the
Board
of
Commissioners
and
using
your
right
to
petition
and
try
to
convince
the
board
of
commissioners
that
additional
criteria
should
apply,
in
other
words,
change
the
law
so
that
we
as
a
quasi-judicial
board,
can
consider
additional
criteria.
A
quasi
judicial
decision
is
a
legal
decision
like
the
order
of
a
judge
or
the
verdict
of
the
jury.
It's
legally
binding
on
the
parties,
unless
it
is
reversed,
modified
or
successfully
appealed.
B
The
only
exception
to
the
legally
binding
nature
of
equation
to
judicial
decision
is
when
the
Board's
decision
is
advisory
to
the
Board
of
Commissioners.
Many
of
the
quasi
judicial
decisions
done
by
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Board
are
advisory
to
the
Board
of
Commissioners,
but
just
because
the
Board's
decision
is
advisory.
Does
that
mean
that
the
board
does
not
have
to
conduct
a
proper
quasi
judicial
hearing
and
render
a
legally
supportable
quasi
judicial
decision
even
in
an
advisory
capacity?
You're
performing
an
essential
role
in
providing
the
Board
of
Commissioners
with
another
look
and
perfect?
B
Those
criteria
are
the
only
ones
you
can
legally
consider
in
reaching
your
quasi
judicial
decision,
and
there
are
a
number
of
reasons
for
that:
they're
good
reasons.
First,
it
is
by
definition
the
purpose
and
function
of
the
quasi
d
to
support
to
apply
those
previously
established
criteria
to
the
facts
of
the
cases
you
find
it.
Second,
if
you
consider
criteria
or
factors
other
than
those
contained
in
the
city's
orbitals,
you
are
encroaching
upon
the
legislative
power
of
the
Board
of
Commissioners.
B
By
substituting
your
judgment
for
the
Board
of
Commissioners
for
the
legislative
judgment
of
Board
of
Commissioners
regarding
what
criteria
should
be
considered
again,
if
you
think
additional
criteria
should
be
considered
or
that
there
are
criteria
that
should
not
be
considered
your
role
as
a
citizen
is
the
petition
your
board
of
commissioners
and
try
to
have
them
change
the
law.
It's
not
your
role
as
a
quasi
judicial
board
member
to
disregard
criteria
or
come
up
with
criteria
that
don't
exist.
B
Third,
if
you
base
your
decision
on
criteria
other
than
those
contains
in
the
city's
ordinances,
you
are
violating
the
due
process:
rights
of
the
parties,
all
persons
have
the
right
of
the
constitutional
right
and
are
in
the
federal
constitution
of
the
state
constitution
to
the
due
process
of
law.
One
of
those
due
process
rights
is
that
judicial
and
quasi
judicial
decisions
affecting
the
person's
life
and
property
should
be
based
on
defined
standards
that
apply
equally
to
all
and
not
on
the
whim
or
personal
feeling
of
the
decision-maker.
B
You
violate
the
stink
process
right
if
you
base
your
decisions
on
criteria
other
than
those
contained
in
the
city's
ordinances.
Finally,
and
most
practically,
and
maybe
most
importantly
from
a
city
attorney
standpoint.
If
you
base
your
decision
on
criteria
criteria
other
than
the
one
set
forth
and
the
applicable
ordinances,
you
open
the
decision
to
being
challenged
in
court
and
if
there's
one
thing,
city
or
a
state,
our
city
is
being
sued.
B
Confidently
tell
you
that
public
opinion
is
never
and
I
repeat
that,
never
a
factor
that
a
quasi
judicial
board
may
legitimately
consider
and
reaching
a
decision
if
public
opinion
was
a
factor
that
you
can
consider,
the
decision
would
not
be
quasi
judicial,
it
would
be
a
popularity
contest
fly
beside
a
referendum.
That's
not
your
role
to
listen
to
the
public.
Your
role
is
to
take
those
criteria
to
find
that
the
facts
of
the
cases
you
find
it.
B
The
odds
are
that
at
some
point
in
time
you
will
make
a
quasi
judges,
judicial
decision
that
is
unpopular
or
goes
against
your
grain.
You
have
a
duty
not
to
be
swayed
by
public
opinion
when
making
a
quasi
judicial
decision
again.
I
come
back
to
the
point
that
your
essential
function
in
city
government
is
to
make
an
impartial
decision
based
upon
the
criteria
set
forth
in
the
ordinance
and
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing.
B
Now,
a
quasi
judicial
decision
is
like
a
trial
in
the
court
system.
The
parties
to
the
quasi
judicial
hearing
are
the
city,
the
applicant
or
in
the
case
of
a
code
enforcement
board.
It
would
be
the
person
cited
and
in
some
cases
in
some
boards,
the
public
and
in
the
or
an
intervener,
the
evidence
will
come
from
the
city
staff
will
come
from
the
applicant
and
the
applicants,
witnesses
and
again
evidence
can
come
from
the
public.
B
You
must
determine
how
the
applicable
ordinances
apply
to
the
facts
of
the
case,
based
upon
the
dead
evidence,
as
its
presented
at
the
hearing.
It's
important
to
remember
that.
The
only
evidence
that
you
may
consider
in
reaching
your
decision
is
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
as
I'm
going
to
explain
in
a
moment
the
reason
for
that
again
has
to
do
with
the
fundamental
principles
of
the
due
process
of
law.
A
B
B
As
I
said,
under
the
federal
state
constitutions,
every
person
is
guaranteed
the
rights
of
the
view
processes.
The
due
process
of
law
on
government
may
see
Jesus
will
require
I
judicial
decision
affecting
that
person's
right.
So
the
first
thing
a
judge
is
going
to
look
at
is
whether
the
person's
challenging
the
decision
received
procedural
due
process.
B
It's
one
of
the
few
things
that
maybe
is
appropriately
named
on
the
law.
Procedural
due
process
addresses
the
process
by
which
the
quasi
judicial
decision
is
reached,
and
it
means
essentially
that
a
party
has
a
following
right.
First
of
all,
the
rights
of
fair
notice
of
what
the
issues
will
be,
second
of
all,
the
right
to
a
fair
opportunity
to
be
heard
on
those
issues.
B
Third,
the
right
to
an
unbiased
decision-maker;
fourth,
the
right
to
be
judged
according
to
defined
and
established
standards
and
criteria
and,
fifth,
the
right
to
have
the
decision
based
upon
proven
facts.
If
a
judge
finds
that
a
party's
right
to
procedural
due
process
has
been
violated,
the
court
will
reverse
the
quasi
judicial
decision
all
right.
The
second
thing
the
court
will
look
at
is
whether
the
essential
requirements
of
the
law
have
been
followed.
B
If
the
applicant
applied
for
a
structure
of
variance
and
the
board
applied
the
criteria
for
a
use
variance,
the
court
will
find
that
the
incorrect
law
would
be
a
flaw
was
applied
and
reverse
the
decision.
I
couldn't
think
of
a
good
quasi-judicial
example
for
the
right
law
being
applied
incorrectly,
so
bear
with
me
on
this
one.
An
example
of
the
right
while
being
applied
incorrectly
would
be
in
a
case
where
someone
was
issued
a
ticket
for
running
a
red
light.
B
The
final
thing
a
court
will
look
at
when
we're
viewing.
A
quasi-judicial
decision
is
whether
the
decision
is
based
is
supported
by
competent,
substantial
evidence,
and
those
are
that's
a
buzz
word
that
comes
out
of
the
decisions
and
every
decision
uses
that
phrase.
A
quasi-judicial
decision
must
be
supported
by
competent,
substantial
evidence
shown
in
the
record,
or
it's
going
to
be
reversed.
B
The
phrase
competent
substantial
evidence
embraces
three
concepts.
The
first
of
these
is
relevant.
The
evidence
supporting
the
decision
must
be
relevant
to
the
issues
to
be
considered
by
the
quasi
judicial
board.
In
the
case
of
equations
I
judicial
decision,
the
issues
are
the
criteria
which
the
board
members
must
consider,
so
the
evidence
must
be
relevant
to
those
issues
and
the
definition
of
relevant
evidence
in
the.
A
A
B
Ill-Defined
but
I
think
it's
fair
to
this
state.
That
is
a
matter
of
common
sense
and
logic.
You
know
you
pretty
much
know
when
someone
is
growing
a
fact
that
you
that's
feel
relevance
of
the
discussion.
We're
throwing
a
fact
view
that
is
relevant
to
the
discussion.
The
second
concept,
embraced
by
the
phrase,
confidence,
substantial
evidence,
is
competency.
B
The
evidence
supporting
the
quasi
judicial
decision
must
be
competent
to
be
competent,
legislatures
and
courts
have
adopted.
The
evidence
must
be
the
type
that
the
courts
on
the
Florida
Legislature
have
found
to
be
reliable,
so
over
the
centuries
courts
and
legislatures
they
have
adopted
rules
of
evidence.
The
basic
intent
of
these
rules
is
to
ensure,
as
fall
far
as
possible,
that
the
evidence
upon
which
a
decision
is
based
is
reliable
evidence.
B
Now
there
is
a
timeless
debate
over
the
rules
of
evidence
and
whether
it
excludes
evidence
that
is
reliable
or
includes
evidence
that
is
unreliable,
but
the
good
news
is
that
the
rules
of
evidence
are
not
strictly
applied
in
a
quasi
judicial
proceeding,
but
there's
some
fundamental
evidentiary
concepts
that
you
need
to
be
aware
of,
and
I'm
going
to
discuss.
Those
in
greater
depth
in
a
few
minutes,
the
final
concept,
embraced
by
the
phrase
competent
substantial
evidence,
is
substantiality.
B
The
evidence
supporting
a
quasi
judicial
decision
must
be
substantial
in
determining
whether
a
decision
is
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
The
court
is
determining
whether
there
is
legally
sufficient
evidence
to
support
the
decision.
Now,
what
constitutes
substantial
evidence
to
support
a
quasi-judicial
decision
is
a
somewhat
elusive
concept.
A
A
B
If
the
issue
is
whether
a
person
is
run
a
red
light
and
there
are
a
hundred
witnesses
and
99
of
them
say
that
the
light
was
yellow,
but
one
of
them
says
the
light
was
red.
Theoretically
is
a
quasi-judicial
decision
maker.
You
have
the
right
to
find
the
99
who
said
the
light,
was
rough,
yellow
or
not
credible
and
base
your
decision
on
the
one
witness
who
testified
that
the
light
was
red.
B
Theoretically,
a
court
and
appellate
court
reviewing
that,
noting
that
there
were
90
dying
witnesses
who
said
the
light
was
yellow,
but
one
who
said
that
the
light
was
red
would
be
compelled
assuming
they
follow.
Their
own
standards
would
be
compelled
to
find
that
the
decisions
based
on
competence,
substantial
evidence,
because
there
is
some
relevant
evidence
in
the
to
support
the
decision.
B
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
right
to
an
unbiased
decision-maker,
one
of
the
protections
afforded
by
procedural
due
process
is
the
right
to
be
judged
by
an
impartial
and
unbiased
decision.
Maker
and
courts
have
reversed
decisions
where
it
has
been
that
where
there
has
been
proven
bias
on
the
part
of
the
decision,
maker
bias
or
an
appearance
of
bias
can
arise
as
the
result
of
the
conflict
of
interest
or
for
some
other
reasons.
B
B
B
B
This
statute
requires
you
to
vote
on
an
official
decision
of
the
board
unless
you
have
or
appear
to
have
a
possible
conflict
of
interest
under
the
code
of
ethics
for
public
officers
and
employees.
The
code
of
ethics
defines
a
conflict
of
interest
to
be
a
situation
in
which
a
regard
for
private
interest.
B
Tends
to
lead
to
a
disregard
of
a
public
duty
or
interest.
That's
a
little
vague
I'll
admit
that
significantly,
the
statute
allows
you
to
abstain
from
voting
if
it
appears
that
you
have
a
possible
conflict
of
interest.
Thus,
the
statute
permits
you
to
err
on
the
side
of
caution
and
abstain
from
voting.
If
it
reasonably
appears
that
you
have
a
possible
conflict
of
interest
as
the
city
attorney,
I
encourage
you
to
err
on
the
side
of
caution
and
abstain
from
voting.
B
Now,
if
you
abstain
from
voting
because
of
an
actual
or
a
possible
conflict
of
interest,
you
must
file
a
written
memorandum,
disclosing
the
nature
of
your
interest
in
the
matter
with
the
personal
person
responsible
for
recording
the
minutes
of
the
meeting
prior
to
the
meeting
in
which
consideration
of
the
matter
will
take
place.
However,
the
statute
says
that
if
the
disclosure
is
not
made
prior
to
the
meeting,
you
must
verbally
disclose
the
nature
of
your
interest
in
the
matter
at
the
meeting
and
within
15
days
after
the
meeting.
B
B
That
statute
prohibits
you
from
participating
in
any
matter
which
you
know
first
would
endure
to
your
special
private
gain
or
loss,
or
would
innards
of
the
special
private
gain
or
loss
of
any
principal
by
whom
you
are
retained,
or
the
parent
organization
or
subsidiary
of
a
corporate
principle
by
which
you
are
retained.
And
thirdly,
you
are
prohibited
from
participating
in
any
manner
which
would
inner
to
the
special
private
gain
or
loss
of
a
relative
or
business
associate.
This
is
kind
of
common
sense.
B
I
would
think,
but
that's
what
the
statute
says
now
relative
is
broadly
defined.
It
is
a
father,
mother,
son
daughter,
husband,
wife,
brother
sister,
father-in-law,
mother-in-law,
son-in-law
or
daughter-in-law
now,
theoretically,
have
not
violated
the
statute.
If
you
have
a
relative
who's
going
to
experience,
a
special
private
gain
or
loss
of
the
resulting
approach
is
not
on
that
list.
B
Participate
is
defined
to
mean
any
attempt
to
influence
the
decision
by
oral
or
written
communication,
whether
made
by
you
or
at
your
direction.
You
have
a
positive
duty
to
refrain
from
participating
in
a
matter.
Even
if
the
parties
to
the
hearing
are
unaware
that
you
have
a
conflict
of
interest
under
the
statute.
If
it
is
later
discovered
that
you
participated
in
a
matter
in
violation
of
the
statute,
the
quasi
judicial
decision
can
be
and
probably
will
be
challenged
in
court.
B
Moreover,
if
you
violate
the
statute,
you
can
face
the
following:
penalties,
removal
or
suspension
from
office,
public
censure
and
reprimand
a
civil
penalty
not
to
exceed
ten
thousand
dollars
and
restitution
of
any
pecuniary
benefits
received
because
of
the
violation,
commitments
or
there's
some
teeth
to
this.
Now
the
code
of
ethics
does
not
define
what
a
special
private
gain
or
loss
is.
B
And
I
will
tell
you
it's
a
pain
to
research.
The
opinions
on
the
commission
of
ethics
they're
not
well
organized.
So
if
you
believe
that
the
statute
may
apply
to
you
with
respect
to
a
particular
vote,
I
encourage
you
to
seek
the
advice
of
the
city
attorney
as
far
in
advance
of
the
hearing
as
possible
in
case
that
research
is
needed,
like
a
conflict
of
interest
under
the
other
statute.
If
the
statute
applies
to
you,
you've
got
to
go
through
the
same
procedure
of
disclosing
your
interest
in
the
matter
and
filing
a
written
memorandum.
A.
B
Conflict
of
interest
is
defined
by
the
code
of
ethics,
as
I've
said,
is,
or
a
special
private
gain
or
loss,
or
just
two
of
the
many
situations
where
an
issue
of
bias
can
arise.
There
are
many
other
circumstances
that
do
not
do
not
amount
to
a
conflict
of
interest
under
the
statute
or
a
special
private
gaynor
special
private
gain
or
loss
under
the
code
of
ethics
that
may
cause
you
to
be
biased
or
give
one
of
the
parties
it
grabbed
a
challenge.
B
The
decision
on
the
basis
of
bias,
deeply
held
beliefs,
opinions
or
positions
can
affect
your
ability
to
be
fair
and
impartial
and
deciding
America
there.
Prior
statements
or
actions
can
form
the
basis
of
a
claim
of
bias,
silly
example,
or
maybe
not
so
silly
and
applicants
seeking
to
build
a
medical
clinic
to
perform
abortions
today
well
of
a
well-founded
claim
of
bias
against
a
board
member
who
has
made
a
prior
statement
that
he
or
she
is
opposed
to
medical
clinics
performing
abortions
unmoral.
B
It's
our
epic
program
always
demonstrated
in
front
of
a
clinic.
A
prior,
close
friendship
or
association
with
a
party
can
form
the
basis
of
a
claim
of
bias.
A
prior
close
friendship
or
association
with
a
particular
witness
say,
an
expert
witness
in
a
case
can
form
the
basis
of
a
claim
of
bias
because
you
may
assign
you
know
the
argument
V
that
you're
going
to
assign
greater
weights
that
witness,
unfortunately,
the
florida
statutes
are
not
clear
on
what
you
should
do.
B
That's
not
based
on
special
private
gain
or
loss
section
2,
86.0
12
tells
you
not
to
vote
when
you
have
an
actual
or
possible
conflict
of
interest
under
the
code
of
ethics,
but
defines
a
conflict
of
interest
is
a
situation
where
a
regard
for
private
interests
tends
to
lead
to
a
disregard
of
public
duty
or
interest,
it's
possible
to
have
a
bias,
that's
unrelated
to
your
private
interest.
Thus,
there
are
situations
where
bias
or
a
claim
of
bias
may.
A
B
That
are
not
addressed
by
the
address
by
the
statute.
So
what
you
should?
What
should
you
do?
Well,
a
literal
reading
of
280
6.0
1
2
requires
you
to
vote
unless
you
have
a
conflict
of
interest,
but
due
process
requires
that
a
party
receive
a
decision
from
an
impartial
decision
maker.
I.
Think
the
answer
to
this
quandary
is
that
the
due
process
right
to
an
impartial
decision
makers,
constitutional
law,
while
the
requirement
that
you
vote,
unless
you
have
a
conflict
of
interest
of
statutory
law
and
the
Constitution
is
superior
to
in
Trump's
statutory
law.
B
Therefore,
I
believe
in
there
are
no
decisions
in
this
state
that
a
court
would
find
that
a
party's
constitutional
due
process
rights
are
violated
where
bias
decision-maker
voted
against
a
party,
even
though
the
decision
maker
was
required
to
vote
by
section
2
86.0
12,
so
my
advice
is,
if
you
think
you
may
be
biased
or
if
your
challenge
for
bias
for
reasons
other
than
those
covered
by
the
statutes.
First,
you
need
to
examine
your
consciousness
honestly
and
decide
whether
you
believe
you
can
render
an
unbiased,
fair
and
impartial
decision.
B
Not
only
is
this
consistent
with
the
constitutional
principle
of
due
process
of
law,
but
it
will
eliminate
a
possible
basis
for
a
legal
decision
to
the
quasi
lead
to
legal
challenge,
to
the
quasi
judicial
decision,
all
right,
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
about
the
rules
of
evidence.
As
I
said,
the
quasi
judicial
decision
must
be
based
upon
the.
B
The
hearing
and
that
evidence
can
be
testimonial
documentary
or
demonstrative,
as
I
said,
and
it's
indeed
fortunate.
The
formal
rules
of
evidence
do
not
apply
to
a
quasi
judicial
decision,
but
remember
that
when
a
court
views
a
quasi-judicial
sued
decision,
it
determines
whether
the
decision
is
based
on
confidence,
substantial
evidence,
because
the
judges,
a
lawyer,
he's
going
to
look
at
the
evidence
through
the
goggles
of
the
rules
of
evidence.
Because
of
this
I
think
you
need
to
be
mindful
of
some
of
the
most
important
rules
of
evidence
in
court.
B
There's
a
distinction
between
admissible
evidence,
inadmissible
evidence,
admissible
evidence
is
simply
evidence
that
the
prior
of
fact
being
a
judge
or
jury
or
your
case,
a
quasi-judicial
board,
may
properly
hear
or
see
and
consider
in
reaching
its
decision
in
a
trial.
But
judge
decides
whether
evidence
is
admissible
or
not.
If
you
watch
the
Trayvon
Martin
case,
you
saw
all
those
hearings
that
were
outside
the
presence
of
the
jury
and
all
those
times
they
went
to
the
bench
and
had
those
bench
conferences
will
probably
have
capas
bench
conferences
for
having
the
judge
decide
on
admissibility.
B
But
there's
no
judging
equated
ischl
hearing
to
make
evidentiary
rulings
on
the
admissibility
of
evidence,
but
the
evidence
that
equation
ishal
hearing
inevitably
includes
evidence.
That
would
be
inadmissible
if
there
were
a
corpse
sitting
there
to
decide
on
whether
you
should
hear
it
or
not.
This
places
a
heavy
burden
on
you
to
determine
what
evidence
you
have
seen
or
heard
during
a
hearing
that
you
may
properly
consider
in
reaching
a
decision.
B
B
So
you
know
ask
yourself
does:
does
was
evidence
that
I
find
very
persuasive.
Does
it
really
tend
to
prove
or
disprove
the
issues?
If
it
doesn't,
then
you
shouldn't
consider
shouldn't
mention
it
when
you're
talking
about
the
dacian
another
fundamental
concept
that
you
should
be
aware
of
is
lack
of
personal
knowledge.
B
It's
fun:
it's
a
fundamental
concept
of
evidence
that
a
witness
may
not
testify
to
matter
unless
the
witnesses,
personal
knowledge
of
a
matter
I
mean
F,
but
she's,
pretty
simple.
But
you
know
a
lot
of
times.
I've
heard
people
get
up,
contesta
late,
quasi-judicial
hearings,
you
know,
I,
know
so-and-so
well,.
B
That
well
so-and-so
told
me
that,
or
you
know,
I
read
it
you
know,
so
the
person
doesn't
that
personal
amount
of
this
based
upon
information
obtained
elsewhere,
all
right,
hearsay
evidence
we've
all
heard
about
it,
which
probably
is
probably
the
most
frequent
objection
hurting
courts.
You
know
that's
hearsay,
so
I'm
in
a
little
technical.
The
definition
of
hearsay
is
an
out-of-court
out
of
hearing
statement
made
by
someone
other
than
the
person
testifying,
which
is
offered
to
prove
the
truth
of
the
matter
of
certain
example.
A
B
And
the
red
light
okay,
so
so
Sam
is
the
out-of-court
person.
Mary
johnny
is
testified,
Mary's
out
of
court
person.
Sorry
johnny
has
testified
that
mary
has
said
that
and
johnny
is
offering
that
testimony
to
prove
that
Sam
rather
and
the
red
light.
Well,
that's
classic
hearsay.
Johnny
won't
see
it.
There's
two
evidentiary
concerns
about
hearsay,
evidence
that.
A
B
A
you
don't
know
whether
Mary
really
made
the
statement
and
second
and
really
importantly,
there's
no
way
for
the
parties
or
the
board
to
question
Mary
to
find
out
whether
the
statement
is
true
or
how
she
knows
that
samurai
and
the
red
light
hearsay
evidence
is
generally
an
admissible
as
one
of
the
most
complicated
rules
of
evidence
there
is
so
it
should
not
so
generally
should
not
be
considered
and
reaching
your
quasi
judicial
decision,
but
I'm
going
to
simplify
the
hearsay
rule
for
you.
There
are.
B
There
are
two
exceptions
that
I
want
you
to
remember
the
most
important
exception.
Exceptions
are
when
the
out-of-court
statement
is
made
by
a
party
to
the
hearing.
Okay.
If
a
party
of
the
hearing
makes
the
statement
out
of
court-
and
someone
comes
in
and
says
they
heard
it,
if
that
statement
can
be
admissible,
because
it's
made
by
a
party
may
be
an
admission
against
interest
by
that
party
summary,
so
you
can
consider
it
an
out-of-court
statement
made
by
a
party
to
hear
the
second
exception
is
when
the
out-of-court
statement
is
made
by
a
witness
who's.
B
President,
the
hearing
and
hoobae
can
be
questioned
about
whether
he
or
she
made
that
statement
out
of
court
in
each
case,
if
you
think
about
it,
the
party
early
at
the
witnesses
present
the
person
to
whom
the
statement
is
attributed
his
present
to
refuse
a
statement.
Every
question
about
the
stable,
so
the
following
of
some
common
examples
of
it
admissible
here
so
John
Brown
testifies
at
the
hearing
that
he
talked
to
an
expert
who
said
that
the
project
would
have
a
negative
impact
on
wetlands.
B
Well,
the
expert
is
in
here
that's
an
out-of-court
statement
by
someone
you
can't
rely
on
it.
You
shouldn't
consider
it
because
Brown
is
offering
this
testimony
to
prove
that
the
project
will
be
adversely
will
adversely
affect
the
environment
again.
The
expert
statement
is
hearsay
because
we
made
outside
to
hear
it
is
being
offered
by
brown
to
prove
that
the
project
will
harm
wetlands.
Second
example:
a
witness
testifies
that
he
has
talked
with
many
of
his
neighbor's
and
they'd
oppose
a
project.
B
We
hear
that
all
the
time
and
I
come
in
I
represent
the
homeowners
association
on
my
members
are
opposed
dance
project.
Well,
the
neighbor
statements
to
that
witness
are
here
say
because
they
were
made
outside
the
hearing
and
are
being
offered
by
the
witness
to
prove
that
other
persons
are
part
of
the
project.
A
B
Because
it's
hearsay
and
the
other
ground
is
a
popularity
of
the
project
is
not
one
of
the
criteria
that
equations
a
judicial
board
can
consider
in
reaching
its
decision.
So
that
would
make
the
evidence
irrelevant
through
an
example-
and
this
is
also
violated-
a
witness
present-
a
petition
signed
by
a
number
of
people
opposing
a
project.
That
petition
is
hearsay
because
it
represents
the
statements
of
the
person
signing
the
petition
made
outside
the
hearing
and
it's
being
offered
by
the
witness
to
prove
that
other
people
oppose
the
project.
B
Evidence
in
the
form
of
opinions
from
witnesses
who
are
not
expert
witnesses
is
generally
inadmissible
evidence
there
are
some
exceptions,
but
the
excited
utterance
exception
things
that
frankly,
I've
never
seen
apply
to
quasi
Jeju
series.
However,
opinion
testimony
from
an
expert
witness
is
admissible
evidence
if
it
relates
to
the
experts
area
of
expertise.
The
court
allows
experts
to
come
in
and
offer
opinions
to
use
their
knowledge
and
experience
to
offer
an
opinion
regarding
the
criteria.
The
issues
to
be
considered.
B
You
know
whether
that
person
is
required,
knowledge,
skill
experience,
training
or
education
in
an
area
to
render
an
expert
opinion
in
there.
The
mindful
of
the
fact
that
an
expert
witness
does
not
have
to
have
letters
behind
his
name
or
a
bunch
of
degrees.
I
prevailed
in
a
case
many
years
ago
where
the
opposing
expert
was
the
rehung
retired.
Head
of
the
department
of
metallurgy
at
harbor
was
a
bicycle
acacia
and
my
witness
was
an
old
guy,
can't
rumors
name
who
operated
a
bicycle
shop
in
tarpon
springs
for
50
years,
okay
and
the
issue.
B
B
Because
al
a
witness,
you
know
that's
not
his
field
of
studying
traffic
engineering.
However,
importantly
Hale,
a
witness
can
testify
to
observe
facts
that
may
make
his
testimony
relevant.
So
if
the
lay
witness
testifies,
but
he
walks
on
that
road
daily
and
he's
observed
an
inordinate
amount
of
traffic.
Well,
that's
a
fact
from
which
you
can
you
can
rely
on
our
views
and
making
your
decision
if
he
just
offers
the
opinion,
then
that's
not
a
fact.
It's
an
opinion.
B
A
B
Ok
I'm,
going
to
terms
of
the
subject
of
ex
parte
contacts
or
communications
and
ex
parte
saying
contact
or
communication
is
any
communication
with,
or
information
acquired
by
a
board
member
about
a
quasi-judicial
matter
outside
the
hearing
on
the
matter.
So
the
following
are
examples
of
ex
parte
communications
or
context
in
conversation
with
a
party
or
parties
representative.
Regarding
a
matter
you
will
be
here
that
includes
a
conversation
with
city
staff.
B
Remember
the
city
is
a
party
to
these
hearings
or
most
of
them,
please
a
conversation
with
a
citizen
regarding
a
mad
at
you
will
be
hearing,
that's
an
ex
parte
contact
or
communication,
a
discussion
with
the
Commissioner
or
the
city
manager
about
a
matter.
You
will
be
deciding
your
independent
review
of
documents,
maps,
platts
plan
sketches
and
the
like.
Prior
to
a
hearing.
B
Your
decision
again
has
to
be
based
upon
the
evidence
and
arguments
presented
by
the
parties
at
the
hearing.
That's
part
of
the
due
process
of
law
and
what
really?
What
really
the
principal
is
here?
The
parties
to
the
hearing
have
a
right
to
hear
and
respond
to
the
evidence
and
arguments
upon
which
you're
going
to
decide
the
case.
So
do
you
have
an
ex
parte
contact
at
communication
or
obtain
information
or
review
documents
outside
the
hearing?
B
The
concern
about
an
ex
parte
contact
or
communication
is
then
it
may
constitute
evidence
or
argument
that
is
president
prejudicial
to
the
parties.
For
this
reason,
Florida
courts
have
held
that
any
ex
parte
contact
of
communication
is
inherently
improper
and
presumed
to
be
prejudicial.
A
party
can
challenge
the
decision
in
court.
B
You
prefer
to
be
on
the
other
side,
so
you
should
disclose
any
ex
parte
contact
or
communication
you
you've
had
prior
to
the
hearing.
You
should
disclose
it
at
the
hearing.
This
gives
the
parties
to
the
hearing
an
opportunity
to
question
you
about
the
contact
of
communication
and
determine
whether
they
should
challenge
you
on
the
grounds
that
the
contacted
communication
was
prejudicial
to
them.
B
B
If
someone
wants
to
talk
to
you
about
a
matter
that
you
will
hear,
tell
the
person
that
the
law
prohibits
you
from
talking
about
it,
if
someone
provide
you
with
documents
or
evidence
before
the
hearing
and
I've
seen
that
happen,
I've
seen
citizens
come
up
and
say:
look
there's
a
1902
plat
of
the
city,
and
this
look.
This
demonstrates
area
in
that
case.
B
Let's
city
staff
know
immediately
so
that
the
applicant
can
be
given
an
opportunity
to
review
the
documents
or
evidence
so
that
it
can
be
brought
out
to
to
take
away
the
tape
of
an
ex
parte
context.
It
is
permissible
for
you
to
go
and
view
a
property.
It's
also
permissible
to
view
the
original
copies
of
documents,
such
as
plans
of
surveys
that
will
be
in
your
package
for
the
hearing.
A
B
A
B
The
city
some
city
boards
may
quasi
judicial
decisions
that
are
integral
to
the
economic
development
of
the
city.
Word
gets
out
in
the
development
community
if
applicants
are
treated
rudely
or
with
hostility
or
decision
affecting
the
rights
of
an
applicant
develop
property
conduct,
conduct
business
are
made
arbitrarily
if
the
city
gets
a
reputation
of
being
anti
development
and
anti
businesses,
developers
and
businesses
will
look
elsewhere.
So
that
does
not
mean
by
any
sense
of
what
I'm
saying
that
you
are
here
to
rubber-stamp
the
decisions
of
the
city.
That
is
not
your
role.
B
That
does
not
mean
you
have
to
ignore
evidence
or
disregard
applicable
criteria
in
order
to
promote
development
or
business
in
the
city.
Your
job
is
not
to
promote
development
or
discourage.
Your
job
is
to
make
impartial
decisions
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
and
the
criteria
to
be
considered
and
let
the
chips
fall
where
they
may.
B
In
doing
this,
you
need
to
conduct
yourself
with
civility
and
common
courtesy.
There
is
no
reason
to
be
rude
or
hostile
to
any
party
or
witnessing
equations
I.
Did
you
sleep
hearing
in
fact,
rudeness
or
hostility?
If
it's
revealed
in
the
record
towards
a
party
or
parties,
witnesses
may
be
seen
by
the
court
of
some
evidence
of
bias
or
prejudice.
B
Even
though
you
are
a
public
official
of
the
city,
you
do
not
represent
the
city
or
the
public,
or
the
citizens
of
the
city
as
a
lawyer
might
represent
a
client.
Your
role
is
to
be
a
neutral
and
impartial
decision
maker.
So
you
should
not
appear.
You
should
not
be
or
appear
to
be,
an
advocate
for
one
side
of
the
other
or
for
the
failure
of
the
public.
B
You
know,
interestingly,
there
is
no
law
in
the
state
of
Florida
that
requires
that
citizens
that
the
city's
citizens
constitute
a
quasi-judicial
board
within
the
city
oftentimes,
it's
a
matter
of
charter
or
a
matter
of
ordinance,
but
I
am
the
board
of
adjustment
and
the
code
enforcement
board
for
the
city
of
redington
shores.
So
you
know
I
offer
that
only
only
to
show
you
that
the
concept
of
being
equations
I
judicial
decision
maker
is
one
of
a
neutral,
pneus
and
impartiality.
B
The
purpose
of
asking
questions
of
the
witness
is
to
obtain
information
that
is
relevant
to
the
decision.
You
must
make
in
my
experience
as
a
trial
lawyer,
a
question
asked
nicely
is
much
more
effective
than
obtaining
information
when
a
question
is
rudely
or
the
challenging
of
fashion
I.
Don't
know
how
many
of
you
watch
some
of
this
Trayvon
Martin
case,
but
those
attorneys
were
not
rude
to
the
witnesses.
They
were
not
challenging,
they
didn't
shout
at
the
witness.
You
know
they
weren't
peri-peri
nations
challenging,
but
you
know
they
weren't,
like
the
TV
shows.
B
You
know
just
ask
questions.
Ask
them
nicely
ask
ask
them
to
obtain
information
you're
far
more
likely
to
get
a
response
from
a
witness,
then,
with
a
rude
or
hostile
questions.
That's
not
going
to
cause
the
witness
to
tighten
up
so
the
following
are
some
good
rules
to
follow
when
questioning
witnesses
pose
your
questions
in
a
neutral
and
civil
manner,
rather
than
a
hostile
or
confrontation,
don't
argue
with
a
witness,
don't
preface
your
questions
with
statements
regarding
your
position
or
beliefs?
B
Don't
express
your
opinion
regarding
the
credibility
of
the
witnesses
statements
when
questioning
a
witness,
you
don't
have
to
tell
a
witness
that
you
find
in
not
credible.
You
know
you
can
simply
find
them
not
credible
in
your
line
and
say
I'm
just
going
to
go
with
this
witnesses.
Keep
your
questions
simple
and,
to
the
point
simple
and
to
the
point,
questions
are
easier
to
understand
and
much
harder
for
the
witness
to
evade.
B
One
of
the
best
trial,
attorneys
I've
ever
met
was
a
young
woman
attorney.
Was
father
white
I
try
to
try
my
first
federal
case
with
her
and
I
tend
to
a
scrambling
questions
in
trial.
She
asked
questions
that
were
like
laser
darts
and
they
were
like
everyone
hit,
the
witness.
The
witness
is
right
in
the
middle
for
him
and
you
could
tell
that
the
jury
was
impressed,
because
these
were
direct
pointed
questions
that
the
witness
had
to
answer
directly
or
appeared
to
be.
You
know
deceptive
or
evasive.
B
If
a
witness
of
response
does
not
answer
your
question.
Do
not
tell
the
witness
that
the
answer
was
unresponsive
rather
and
I.
Do
this
all
the
time
tell
the
witness
that
yeah.
You
know.
I
really
appreciate
that
information,
but
what
I
want
to
know
is
and
repeat
your
question
if,
after
a
couple
of
attempts
or
witness
still
has
not
answered
the
question,
then
move
on
so
witnesses.
Failure
to
provide
a
responsive
answer
to
a
simple
question
is
evidence
that
you
may
consider
in
reaching
your
decision.
B
Okay,
if
the
person
isn't
going
to
answer
your
question
is
going
to
evade
your
answer
and
you
can.
Can
you
know
you
can
consider
that
in
reaching
your
decision?
Finally,
do
not
ask
questions
that
are
irrelevant
to
the
criteria
you
must
consider.
This
only
complicates
the
issue
and
provides
evidence
to
an
aggrieved
party
that
your
decision
may
be
based
on
something
other
than
the
criteria
which
are
prior
required
to
consider
all
right,
I'm
going
to
talk
about
government
and
sunshine
law
as
a
public
official
you're
subject
to
it,.
B
People
assume
this
law
is
more
complicated
than
it
really
is.
The
sunshine
law
requires
that
all
meetings
of
your
board,
at
which
official
acts
are
to
be
taking
be
open
to
the
public
at
all
times
stated
another
way.
No
official
action
can
be
taken
by
our
board
unless
it
is
taken
at
a
publicly
noticed
meeting
courts
have
held
an
official
action,
includes
the
inquiry
and
discussion
stages
of
any
action
by
your
board.
B
B
The
essence
of
the
Sunshine
Law-
and
this
is
it-
is
that
two
or
more
members
of
the
same
board
may
not
discuss
any
matter
that
will
come
before
or
may
come
before
for
official
action
unless
that
discussion
is
held
at
a
properly
notice.
Public
meeting
so
just
remember
that
the
purpose
of
the
Sunshine
Law
is
so
that
the
public
can
be
present
and
see
and
hear
the
discussion,
thought
processes
and
position
of
a
public
of
public
officials
when
acting
in
their
official
capacity.
B
So
the
simplest
way
to
avoid
violating
the
Sunshine
Law
is
to
never
discuss
your
boards
business
with
another
board
member.
Unless
you're
at
a
publicly
notice
meeting
of
the
board
have
a
law
prohibits
any
form
of
evasion
to
get
around
the
sunshine
law.
You
cannot
communicate
with
another
board
member
about
matters
that
may
be
come
before
the
board
by
email
letter,
social
media
to
another
person
provide
any
other
means
of
communication.
B
Unless
that
communication
is
done
at
a
publicly
noticed
meeting
of
the
board,
the
following
are
two
examples
of
less
obvious
violations
of
the
Sunshine
Law.
The
board
member
sends
an
email
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Department
and
copies
other
members
of
the
board.
The
email
States
of
the
board
member
doubts
that
a
pending
application
will
meet
one
of
the
required
criteria
for
approval.
This
violates
the
Sunshine
Law,
because
the
board
member
is
conveying
his
or
her
position
regarding
a
manner
that
will
come
before
the
board
outside
of
a
public
meeting
of
the
board.
B
Here's
another
example
to
planning
and
zoning
board.
Members
are
at
a
meeting
of
the
Senate
club.
There
is
a
discussion
about
a
proposed
new
business
in
town
that
will
have
to
obtain
site
plan
through
approval
from
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Board,
one
of
the
P&G
members
board
member
states
living
meeting
that
he
opposes
the
new
business
you
state
sending
the
presence
of
the
other
work
number.
A
B
A
person
filed
a
civil
action
to
enforce
the
requirements
of
sunshine
law
or
to
invalidate
an
action
in
violation
of
the
sunshine.
Long
wins
the
case.
The
court
must
assess
for
plaintiffs,
attorneys
fees
against
the
defendant
and,
if
there's
a
sunshine
law
violation,
the
defendant
is
going
to
be
the
board
member
violating
not
the
city.
So
in
fact,
I
will
tell
you.
B
I
will
tell
you
that
I
just
learned
today
from
the
Florida
League
of
Cities
of
the
racket
in
the
state
of
Florida,
two
guys
who
are
paralegals
from
South
Florida
are
going
around
and
making
ridiculous
public
records
request
about
the
state
of
Florida
in
hopes
of
getting
the
city's
not
to
cooperate
or
to
violate
a
public
records
law
so
that
they
can
file
suit
and
assess
significant
attorneys
fees
in
that
process.
So
these
attorneys
fees
can
sometimes
be
prohibited.
You
know
at
least
four
or
five
thousand
dollars
for
a
very
simple
sunshine
law
violation.
B
All
right:
I'm
gonna
talk
about
the
code
of
ethics
for
public
officers
and
employees.
This
too
is
a
little
tedious.
You
because
you
are
a
public
official
you're
subject
to
the
code
of
ethics.
For
public
officers
and
employees
contained
in
chapter
112
of
the
code
of
ordinances
of
the
florida
statutes,
that's
long
and
complicated
statute
that
on
talk
and
a
lot
of
it
is
common
sense.
I
mean
you
know,
you
know
ethics
pathetic,
but
I'm
going
to
talk
about
some
of
the
more
significant
requirements.
B
First
of
all
or
solicitation
or
acceptance
of
gifts,
you
may
not
solicit
or
accept
anything
of
value
of
value
to
you,
including
a
gift
loan
reward
promise
of
future
employment,
favor
or
service,
based
upon
any
understanding
that
your
vote,
official
action
or
judgment
would
be
influenced
there.
By
now.
The
phrase
value
to
you
means
that
whatever
is
solicited
or
accepted
does
not
have
to
possess
any
intrinsic
value.
B
B
The
only
issue
is
whether
they
have
some
subjective
value
to
you.
This
prohibition
applies
to
solicitation,
is
loyal
acceptance,
so
it's
violated
if
you
ask
for
something
in
return,
it's
violated.
If
you
ask
for
something
in
return
for
your
vote,
regardless
of
whether
you
receive
whatcha
say
there
does
not
have
to
be
a
contract
quid
pro
quo,
alright
unauthorized
compensation,
you,
your
spouse,
your
minor
child.
B
Only
those
three
may
not
accept
any
compensation,
payment
or
thing
of
value
when
you
know,
or
should
know,
with
the
exercise
of
reasonable
care
that
it
was
given
to
influence
your
vote
or
other
official
action.
I
have
no
explanation
for
why
it's
limited
to
you,
your
spouse,
or
your
minor
child
I,
would
think
it
would
be
a
little
more
expensive.
B
The
focus
of
this
section
is
on
the
intent
of
the
giver.
If
it
can
be
proven
that
you
knew
or
should
have
known,
that
the
compensation
payment
or
thing
of
value
was
given
by
someone
to
you
with
the
intent
to
influence
your
vote
or
official
action,
then
you
violated
the
section.
I
have
some
questions
about
the
fairness
of
that
of
that
higher
years,
fussing
of
a
subjective
intent
of
someone,
but
that's
what
the
statute
says.
B
You
may
not
properly
use
or
attempt
to
use
your
physician
or
perform
your
official
duties
to
secure
a
special
privilege
benefit
for
exemption
for
you
or
anyone
else.
Now
this
one,
the
opposite
of
the
whole
world,
I,
don't
know
and
believe
it
or
not
their
own.
The
same
statute,
corruptly
means
done
with
a
wrongful
intent
or
the
purpose
purpose
of
obtaining
for
compensating
or
receiving
compensation
for
any
benefit,
resulting
from
some
act
or
omission
of
a
public
servant
which
is
inconsistent
with
the
proper
performance
of
his
or.
B
You
know
it
seems
pretty
obvious
now
the
city
is
adopted,
a
code
of
ethics
policy
that
mirrors
the
state
code
of
ethics
right
so
I'm,
going
to
give
you
six
simple
rules
to
live
by
that
ship.
Keep
you
from
getting
into
trouble
on
any
of
these
one
avoid
exploits
a
contacts
or
communications
dispose.
Any
that
may
have
occurred
before
the
hearing
starts
to
do
not
discuss
the
business
of
your
board
with
other
board
members
other
than
add
a
duly
notice.
B
Public
meeting
three
do
not
participate
in
any
matter
where
you
a
voting,
conflict
or
or
biased
for
base.
Your
opinion
base
your
decision
on
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
not
on
public
opinion,
five
base,
your
decisions
solely
on
the
criteria
contained
in
the
applicable
ordinances
and
six
remember
at
all
times,
you
are
representative
of
the
and
conduct
your
self
accordingly.
B
That
concludes
this
presentation.
I
know
I've
covered
a
lot
of
material,
so
you
have
a
handout
that
addresses
the
material
and
cover
them.
I
encourage
you
to
refer
to
it.
If
there's
one
thing,
I
want
you
to
take
from
this
presentation,
it's
this
I
think
sometimes
quasi
judicial
board
members
don't
appreciate
for
sure
they
feel
they're
not
appreciated
by
the
Board
of
Commissioners
and
I.
Don't
think
they
appreciate
their
roles
or
vital
role
in
conducting
the
city.
B
You
know
quasi-judicial
bores
and
the
members
who
serve
on
them
serve
an
important
and
necessary
governmental
function
for
any
city
and
for
this
city
when
that
function
is
to
make
an
impartial
decision
and
how
the
city's
ordinances
apply
in
specification,
based
upon
my
criteria
contained
in
the
ordinances
and
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing,
just
think
about
them.
To
think
about
how
important
your
role
is.
You
are
the
judge
and
jury
between
broad
legislative
and
action
and
organs
and
individuals
and
their
specific
situations.