17 <br />Employment Div., 312 Or 543, 552, 824 P2d 410 (1992)). <br />If LUBA's decision is allowed to stand, an appellant could dictate its <br />own opponents by simply not serving any other party and no party would be <br />entitled to recourse. Frequently, local governments do not appear at LUBA - <br />most likely due to budgetary constraints. If an appellant could unilaterally <br />prevent other participants from participating by simply failing to comply with <br />its statutory duty to inform them of the filing of an appeal, it would provide an <br />incentive to not provide notice. Such a result is contrary to sound principles of <br />judicial review and the intent of the legislature in adopting HB 2502 (1997). <br />LUBA's decision in Mountain West is the proper result; when a party to a <br />local government proceeding is not provided with notice of an appeal, the <br />deadline to file a motion to intervene should be suspended in the interests of <br />"sound principles of judicial review. That result is consistent with the intent of <br />the legislature, as shown by the text and contact of ORS 197.830(7) and the <br />legislative history that led to the adoption of that provision. <br />Accordingly, LUBA decision should be reversed and this matter should <br />be remanded to the City of Eugene to allow Mr. Trautman, as well as the other <br />people who were not provided notice, to participate in the City's decision. <br />OCTOBER 2014 <br />