What are the Quasi-Judicial Functions of the Governing Body?
Quasi-Judicial Functions and Closed Meetings: Legal Boundaries in Montana Municipal Governance
The judicial functions of a unit of a municipal government are performed by local courts. However, in Montana it is also true that a governing body itself, from time to time, performs certain decision-making functions that approximate a judicial process. These kinds of decisions by the council are referred to in Montana law as administrative or quasi‐judicial functions and deserve particular attention. In general, when a council passes an ordinance it is making “new law” that declares a public purpose to achieve the government’s fundamental mission. In doing so, the council is probably performing a legislative function. The initial
adoption of a municipal zoning code is a reasonably good example of a purely legislative act by a governing body. Montana Municipal Officials Handbook 46 However, when that same local governing body makes a policy decision that provides for the administration of an existing law or policy or applies an existing policy or law to a particular person or circumstance, it is probably not performing a legislative act but, rather, is performing a quasi‐judicial function.
A quasi‐judicial function means that the governing body is exercising its judgment or discretion, often involving its interpretation and application or enforcement of existing policies, rules or law. For example, a fact-finding process by the council; ordering an action or the abatement of an action; adopting rules of procedure; or conducting any public
hearing are typical instances of a governing body performing a quasi‐judicial function rather than its more usual legislative function. There are several reasons why it is important for a local governing body to recognize the distinction between its purely legislative actions and those decisions of the council or commission that may be quasi‐judicial. If in doubt, the council’s
presiding officer should certainly seek the guidance of the city attorney concerning procedural requirements to assure a flawless quasi‐judicial action by the council. At a minimum, any quasi‐judicial decision by the council should be supported by a complete record (tape recording that can later be transcribed if needed) of the decision process that is sufficient to enable formal judicial review by a district court. Additionally, all of the procedural safeguards, including legally sufficient notice of the proceeding, should be scrupulously adhered to in order to assure even-handed citizen participation during the hearing process.
adoption of a municipal zoning code is a reasonably good example of a purely legislative act by a governing body. Montana Municipal Officials Handbook 46 However, when that same local governing body makes a policy decision that provides for the administration of an existing law or policy or applies an existing policy or law to a particular person or circumstance, it is probably not performing a legislative act but, rather, is performing a quasi‐judicial function.
A quasi‐judicial function means that the governing body is exercising its judgment or discretion, often involving its interpretation and application or enforcement of existing policies, rules or law. For example, a fact-finding process by the council; ordering an action or the abatement of an action; adopting rules of procedure; or conducting any public
hearing are typical instances of a governing body performing a quasi‐judicial function rather than its more usual legislative function. There are several reasons why it is important for a local governing body to recognize the distinction between its purely legislative actions and those decisions of the council or commission that may be quasi‐judicial. If in doubt, the council’s
presiding officer should certainly seek the guidance of the city attorney concerning procedural requirements to assure a flawless quasi‐judicial action by the council. At a minimum, any quasi‐judicial decision by the council should be supported by a complete record (tape recording that can later be transcribed if needed) of the decision process that is sufficient to enable formal judicial review by a district court. Additionally, all of the procedural safeguards, including legally sufficient notice of the proceeding, should be scrupulously adhered to in order to assure even-handed citizen participation during the hearing process.