​WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARDS
PRINCIPLES

Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
​
In general, decision-makers such as Board members must not only be fair in their actions (i.e. have no conflicts of interest), but also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position, or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. The State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision-maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. Members may not properly discuss proposals under consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications).

Principles

1. Decision-makers should be guided by accepted principles of land use planning.
   In enacting the Boundary Review Board Act in 1967, the Legislature sought to establish a more orderly means of dealing with accelerating growth and the seemingly haphazard competition among local governments and special-purpose districts. In establishing the Growth Management Act in 1990 and 1991, the Legislature endorsed basic principles of land-use planning for growing areas and required boundary review boards to promote those principles. The WSABRB believes that any legislative proposal to establish a constitutionally acceptable means of annexation, or to alter the boundary-review system in any way, must continue that commitment to established planning practice.​
2. Decisions on boundary issues should be reliable, consistent, and universal.
   State law provides some latitude for local comprehensive plans, to allow for regional and local conditions. However, the standards by which disputes are decided should be the same in all places and in all instances. The 80 members of the 14 Boundary Review Boards in Washington are not planning professionals, they are appointed by elected officials for their knowledge and experience. Boundary Review Board members take very seriously their obligation to know and follow the state laws which govern their work. WSABRB strives to conduct ongoing statewide training of board members and staff, utilizing the expertise of attorneys and other professionals.
3. The boundary review process must remain open, accessible and responsive.
   Government regulations and bureaucracies can be difficult, especially in such complicated matters as jurisdictional disputes. Any system must provide for qualified staff to advise all interested parties of their rights and responsibilities, to provide an objective evaluation of proposals according to statutory requirements, and to provide expert guidance. This function may be little noticed by observers of the present system, but it is essential to its success.
4. Decisions on jurisdictional matters must be fair, equitable, and appear to be so.
   For citizens to retain confidence in their democratic institutions and the decisions that affect them, it must be clear that disputes are decided in an even-handed manner by disinterested arbiters. Parties involved in these matters include cities, counties, special-purpose districts, property owners and ratepayers and community organizations. Those deciding the dispute must not be tied to any of these interests.
5. Action on jurisdictional questions should be efficient and economical.
   Citizens seek efficiency in government, and administrative systems must be designed to deliver services expeditiously and economically. A test for any legislative proposal should be whether it fosters the most efficient delivery of services. The WSABRB would urge that any such proposals be subjected to careful fiscal analysis and comparison to the present system.