Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 25 There is a judicially -recognized "institutional bias" established by requiring the seating of competing industry interests (more tenants than landlords) on the rent board. Opposing interests are imbalanced when one side is invariably over -represented. This requirement establishes the appearance of bias and impropriety, upon the board. Why? The answer is quite simple. Would the tenants agree to a Board on which there were four mobilehome park owners and two tenants? The courts utilize this test to determine whether or not the promoters of the legislation have been fair and reasonable. In this instance, the confidences regarding underlying motive is betrayed and revealed: the true intent of this law is to bully landlords and violate palpably clear rules required by due process of law. This simple question puts into a sharp perspective the need for careful preparation and review of the most basic laws somehow overlooked here. This question also illustrates the quite obvious and fundamental deficiency in the establishment of a due process administrative board. Absent preservation of impartiality, government is but a behemoth -like bully trampling the rights of unpopular minorities— here, mobilehome park owners. Rather, it is well understood that the objective of the Santa Ana Rent Board is to adjudicate rent levels for specific mobilehome parks and for particular tenants. The role is quasi-adjudicatooy. The hearing process must be impartial. It is well settled that a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. (In re Murchison (1955) 349 U.S. 133, 136 [99 L.Ed. 942, 946, 75 S.Ct. 623].) Due process requires a competent and impartial tribunal in the administrative hearings. (Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 271 [25 L.Ed.2d 287, 300-301, 90 S.Ct. 1011].) Even if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, due process is deemed to be denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or appearance of bias. (Peters v. Kiff (1972) 407 U.S. 493, 502 [33 L.Ed.2d 83, 93-94, 92 S.Ct. 2163].) As the Supreme Court stated in In re Murchison, supra, 349 U.S. at 136: "Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." This important case has been followed as is required, in California. Nissan Motor Corp. v. NMVB (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 109, 113. When an administrative agency includes persons who have a financial interest, or relationships with other commission members, without special or unique expertise to decide the matters within the agency jurisdiction, and where there is no counterbalance to the appearance of the impropriety thereby created, it is clear the tribunal cannot appear to dispense impartial justice, nor appear to. In the case at bar, all the foregoing factors combine to demonstrate the utter collapse of fairness in spirit or fact toward Appellant. The line of cases beginning with the American Motor Sales Corp. v. NMVB ("NMVB") (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 986. It reveals the judicial concern for the appearance ofpropriey and absence of favoritism in adjudication in administrative commissions and boards of multiple members. -25-