GENERAL46384 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

authorizes the Boazd to regulate the course of its hearings. It cannot be reasonably disputed that the Board has the power to revise its own procedural orders dozing the course of the hearing. The Board's decision to afford the Division more time than it originally reserved for rebuttal is within the Board's discretion. VI. There Is No Evidence To Support The Allegation That The Board Was Impermissibly Biased. Throughout their azguments, Plaintiffs attempt to pornay the Board as biased in favor of Four States. They believed they had the burden of proof at the hearing, and therefore the Board erred by not assigning the burden to the Applicant. Plaintiffs cite as a basis for their belief certain statements made by the prehearing conference officer, statements that are not part of the record. § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. provides that the Court limit its review of the facts to the record. Therefore, this azgument is properly disregarded. The Plaintiffs must cite specific examples in the record to demonstrate that the Boazd or any of its members has a conflict of interest or an impermissible bias: A legal presumption of integrity, honesty, and impartiality exists in favor of those serving in a quasi judicial capacity. And in order to overcome this presumption, the challenger of the quasi-judicial decision must demonstrate a conflict of interest or impermissible bias upon the part of the decision maker. Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School Dist. RE-1, 809 P.2d 1010, 1014-1015. (Colo.App. 1990), affirmed in part, reversed in part, Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992). The Plaintiffs essentially believe the Board did not give their evidence the weight it deserves, but instead focused on the evidence presented by Four States and the Division. They believe the Division advocated on behalf of Four States, denying them due process. They argue 15