Laserfiche WebLink
parties' knowledge of the facts at that time, Plaintiffs did not present this as a basis for the Board <br />to reject the Division's proposed approval. As a matter of law, the Plaintiffs failed to preserve <br />this issue for consideration by this Court because the Plaintiffs did not present the argument to <br />the Board for its initial ruling on the matter. Hargett, 854 P.2d at 1322; Salazar, 964 P.2d at <br />507. <br />D. The Board Properly Excluded the November 16, 2010 NRCS Letters <br />Plaintiffs argue that the Board erred in excluding two, last - minute NRCS letters, dated <br />November 16, as evidence at the November 17 hearing. Opening Brief, p. 25. However, the <br />letters were not properly or timely disclosed as required by the pre- hearing order. 16 The Board <br />properly exercised its discretion to exclude the NRCS letters because Plaintiffs' dilatory tactics <br />prejudiced the ability of other parties to review and respond to or seek clarification from NRCS <br />regarding its November 16 letters. <br />The Act and APA Grant the Board Great Discretion to Accept or Exclude <br />Evidence in a Formal Administrative Hearing <br />Plaintiffs requested a Board hearing on the Division's proposed approval of PR -6 <br />pursuant to § 34- 33- 119(4). R: 7437. Pursuant to that section, the hearing must be adjudicatory <br />and conducted in accordance with § 24 -4 -105. In addition to other powers, § 24- 4- 105(4) grants <br />the Board wide discretion in "rul[ing] upon offers of proof and receiv[ing] evidence" and taking <br />any action "in accordance, to the extent practicable, with the procedure in the district courts." <br />Shaball v. State Compensation Ins. Auth., 799 P.2d 399, 405 (Colo. App. 1990) (holding <br />16 Pro se litigants must still comply with the very basic principles of due process and trial <br />procedure to which they avail themselves. <br />27 <br />