[Vision2020] Moscow City Council Ignores Due Process

[Donovan Arnold]

Mr. Dickinson and others,

I appreciate your response and we are in agreement on
the need for correction of the city code.

However, you seem to misunderstand either the concept
of due process, or are unaware of the lack of due
process that took place at the BOA meeting, which is
understandable because you did not to attend the BOA
meeting. 
 
First, it is a violation of due process to limit the
defense to 15 minutes and give unlimited time to the
complainants. Due process requires that both sides be
given an equal opportunity to present. BOA rules state
that comments from members of the public is limited to
only 15 minutes. Since, NSA was not included as an
interested party, they were limited to 15 minutes,
look that up in the BOA rules, you will find it. 

Second, Mr. Curley, attorney for the complainants, was
given an opportunity to rebut Mr. Dickison’s
arguments. Mr. Dickison was not ever given an
opportunity to rebut or counter argue Mr. Curly’s
claims. If one side gets this as a right, so should
the other.

Finally and most importantly, I would like to point
out that NSA was only given the evidence and
argumentation against them five minutes before the
hearing, (I was there, I saw that Mr. Dickison was not
handed papers that were submitted to the BOA, and he
complained about it, to you and at the time to BOA,
check your records.

Five minutes is not adequate time to prepare a
defense, Mr. Dickinson. How can NSA prepare arguments
and submit counter evidence against claims made by Mr.
Curley’s clients if they are not told what they are
until the hearing starts? They cannot. That is why it
is illegal and a violation of due process to perform a
hearing in this fashion. For the County BOE hearing,
evidence has to be submitted three days before, or it
is inadmissible. But for the city, springing charges
on a guy five minutes ahead of time where their
property is at sake seems not to be a "flawed
process"? I hope you do not hold that opinion Mr.
Dickinson as being true due process and that we are
just having a misunderstanding. Residents of Moscow
deserve ample time to review and defend charges made
against them.
 
If someone gave you just five minutes to review
charges against you and prepare a defense and 15
minutes to present it, would you find that fair? That
is what you gave NSA. What do you think a court of law
will say about that? Think about it.  

Donovan J Arnold



--- John Dickinson <johnd at moscow.com> wrote:

> Hi-
> 
> While I am sure a lawyer might be able to explain
> this more accurately, the
> meeting in City Hall last night was an appeal and as
> such it dealt with only
> the record of the case. Within the record was
> evidence presented by the City
> and both sides of the case. If someone is convicted
> of a crime and appeals
> that conviction to the Idaho Supreme Court, the
> Supreme Court looks at the
> record as presented at trial and determines if the
> decision made was correct
> given the evidence and the law. If there is a sense
> that more evidence were
> needed to clarify the situation, the case can be
> sent back to the lower body
> for more evidence gathering, i.e. remanded. I asked
> Mr. Dickison what areas
> he felt might warrant more discussion and the areas
> he mentioned did not
> seem to me to be central to the merits of the case.
> I will not speak for the
> other council members, but as a body we did not
> remand this case.
> 
> There are aspects of city code that need correcting,
> but I think that the
> process is not flawed.
> 
> I do appreciation your attendance at the council
> meeting and hope to see you
> at many more in the future.
> 
>  
> 
> John Dickinson
> Moscow City Council
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-
> 
> > bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
> 
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:15 AM
> 
> > To: nchaney at moscow.com; johnd at moscow.com;
> pegh at uidaho.edu; jon at n-k-
> 
> > ins.com; jlmack1 at verizon.net; lpall at moscow.com;
> griedner at ci.moscow.id.us;
> 
> > comstock at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> 
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Moscow City Council Ignores
> Due Process
> 
> > 
> 
> > Moscow City Council Ignores Due Process.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Last night (6/27/05) the Moscow City Council heard
> an
> 
> > appeal made by New St. Andrews College (NSA)
> regarding
> 
> > the Board of Adjustment's decision that NSA was in
> 
> > violation of the City of Moscow zoning codes.
> 
> > 
> 
> > The 4-2 decision, I believe, only served as a
> catapult
> 
> > to a court battle that can easily overturn the
> council
> 
> > because it ignored an important part of law that
> 
> > trumps any city code, due process. Setting aside
> any
> 
> > position on the issue, and the evidence and
> arguments
> 
> > presented, or shall I say in this case, lack of
> 
> > evidence and arguments presented, do you honestly
> find
> 
> > the process outlined by the Moscow City Code (MCC)
> for
> 
> > appealing decisions regarding the planning and
> zoning
> 
> > administrator as fair and incorporating due
> process
> 
> > when you include the following:
> 
> > 
> 
> > First, let me point out that BOTH Mr. Curley,
> 
> > representing those filing the complaint, and Mr.
> 
> > Dickison, representing NSA,  stated that they were
> not
> 
> > allowed to present evidence. Now I ask, what kind
> of
> 
> > decision could possibly derive from a process
> where no
> 
> > evidence is allowed to be presented? Is this a
> fair
> 
> > process in your mind? Do you want a city council
> 
> > making decisions where both sides of a complaint
> state
> 
> > they were not ever permitted an opportunity to
> present
> 
> > evidence? I surely do not. I would also hope that
> any
> 
> > sound reasonable person would also reject such a
> 
> > process that requires members of the city council
> to
> 
> > form opinions and make decisions without
> presentation
> 
> > of ANY evidence.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Second, I would like to point out NSA was not
> allowed
> 
> > to formally be represented in the BOA hearing.
> Their
> 
> > status was only permitted as that of any concerned
> 
> > members of the community, not as an interested
> party
> 
> > whose property was threatened. They were also
> denied
> 
> > the opportunity to present evidence or make
> arguments
> 
> > they felt would advance their case.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Third, representatives for NSA were not given an
> 
> > opportunity to review the information given to the
> BOA
> 
> > until five minutes before the hearing began. This
> did
> 
> > not allow the legal representatives of NSA time to
> 
> > read and make a case or clarify any misinformation
> in
> 
> > the materials presented by the complainants.
> 
> > Furthermore, the information the representatives
> of
> 
> > NSA were given was limited to that of only what
> those
> 
> > filing the complaint consented to divulge to the
> 
> > representatives of NSA until AFTER the hearing.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Finally, the city council, in the appeal, was only
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail