Once more I’ve witnessed a Pro Per failing to understand what adjudication is all about. I cannot over emphasize the following paragraph.
Adjudication, whether civil court, OAH, or ADR, is not a social club committee meeting. There are rules that must be followed. “Adjudication” is not the judge cheering the Pro Per with “Right on!”, but an evaluation after hearing both sides. Empty allegations carry no weight. Authoritative evidence is needed — statutes, governing documents, sworn witnesses and pertinent dispute related documents like emails, notices, etc. This is precisely why the parties are informed that the decision is based “on the preponderance of the evidence.“ Get the evidence or don’t file a complaint!
IN OAH 08F-08901, a question of interpretation was raised involving the exceptions to open meeting requirements — ARS 33-1804(A) pertaining to pending litigation, employees and attorney advice. These terms are not defined within the governing documents nor Title 33, Ch. 9 and 16, the only 2 chapters allowed to be heard by OAH. Consequently, civil court is required. In this case, however, the definitions were not challenged until the last minute of the hearing when the Pro Per asked the ALJ how his complaint fell under one of the exceptions. The ALJ, after already deciding against the homeowners, replied, “I’m not really in a position to answer that question.” Grounds for an appeal.
A second major issue was the interpretation of the ADR provisions within the Declaration. Did they apply to this complaint? The ALJ read the documents involved in the closed meeting, the subject of the complaint, in private, and made his decision that the closed meeting was not a violation. The Pro Per failed to present any substantive argument that his understanding of grammar was faulty. That the ADR provision only applied to construction issues.
Do not waste your time filing a complaint or any civil action if you do not plan to diligently heed my warnings in the above second paragraph.