Title: State Elec. Bd. v. Hansen

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

State Elec. Bd. v. Hansen1996 WY 171928 P.2d 482Case Number: 96-61Decided: 12/20/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
STATE 
OF WYOMING ELECTRICAL BOARD,

Appellant 
(Respondent),

v.

Ron HANSEN, M-43, Master 
of Record (Intermountain Electrical Service, Inc. C-29), 

Appellee 
(Petitioner).

Appeal from District 
Court, Fremont County, D. Terry Rogers, J.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General, and Larry M. Donovan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, 
for Appellant (Respondent).

David B. Hooper 
of Hooper Law Offices, Riverton, and Tom A. Glassberg of Hooper Law Offices, 
Teton Village, for Appellee (Petitioner).

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellee Ron 
Hansen sought review from an order issued by the Wyoming Electrical Board 
(Board) in which the Board found that Mr. Hansen had violated certain Wyoming 
statutes. The district court reversed the Board's findings and conclusions for 
failure to follow reporting requirements. Appellant Board now 
appeals.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUE

[¶3]      Appellant poses 
the following issue for review:

Did the district court 
err in reversing the action taken by the State Electrical Board solely because 
there was no contested case transcript available?

[¶4]      Appellee 
rephrases the issue:

When an agency violates 
the verbatim reporting requirements of both (a) the Administrative Procedure Act 
and (b) the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Fire Prevention and 
Electrical Safety, by failing to tape record a license revocation hearing, may 
the reviewing court hold unlawful and set aside the agency's action, findings, 
and conclusions, especially when the licensee detrimentally relied on the 
agency's advance assurance that the hearing would be tape 
recorded?

FACTS

[¶5]      The facts of this 
case are not in dispute. Mr. Hansen holds a state of Wyoming master electrician 
license and is the master of record for Intermountain Electrical Service, Inc. 
On September 19, 1995, the Electrical Safety Division sent a Notice of Hearing 
Opportunity to Mr. Hansen. Therein Mr. Hansen was advised that a hearing had 
been scheduled to determine alleged violations of electrical statutes and rules 
and regulations of the Department of Fire Prevention and Electrical Safety; the 
location, date and time of the hearing; that Mr. Hansen could submit a written 
statement in lieu of appearing; that the Board would make a record of the 
proceeding via a tape recorder; and that the decision could be appealed to the 
district court. Mr. Hansen elected to submit a written statement and did not 
appear at the hearing. When the Board issued its decision and order ruling 
against him, Mr. Hansen attempted to obtain a transcript or tape recording of 
the hearing. He was advised, however, that the tape recorder had malfunctioned. 
The Board acknowledges that no transcripts are available for any stage of the 
proceedings.

[¶6]      Mr. Hansen filed 
a Petition for Review of Administrative Action and Motion to Reverse Board 
Decision, contending W.S. 16-3-107(p) (Cum.Supp. 1996) and ch. 8 § 13 of the 
Rules and Regulations, Department of Fire Prevention and Electrical Safety 
require a verbatim record of the proceedings. The district court reversed the 
Board's decision and remanded for a new hearing or such further proceedings as 
the Board deemed appropriate. It is from this order that the Board now 
appeals.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7]      We review 
administrative agency decisions as though they were appealed directly to this 
court, according no deference to the decision of the district court. Barcon, 
Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 845 P.2d 373, 376 (Wyo. 1992); Atchison v. 
Career Serv. Council, 664 P.2d 18, 20 (Wyo. 1983). The Wyoming Administrative 
Procedure Act, W.S. 16-3-101 through -115 controls the scope of review. 

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      In deciding the 
question of whether the Board's failure to keep a verbatim report of the hearing 
justifies reversal of the Board's order, we first look to W.S. 16-3-107(p) 
(Cum.Supp. 1996):

In all contested cases 
the proceeding including all testimony shall be reported verbatim 
stenographically or by any other appropriate means determined by the agency or 
the officer presiding at the hearing.

Additionally, 
ch. 8, § 13 of the Rules and Regulations, Department of Fire Prevention and 
Electrical Safety, provides in pertinent part:

The hearing shall be 
reported verbatim, stenographically, or by any other appropriate means 
determined by the Department or hearing officer. A copy will be furnished to any 
party upon written request to the Department[.]

The Board chose 
to accomplish the verbatim reporting requirement by means of tape recording. For 
whatever reason, the tape recorder malfunctioned, and there remains no 
transcript for any stage of the proceeding. This procedural failure violates the 
mandatory language of W.S. 16-3-107(p) and departmental rules and 
regulations.

[¶9]      When confronted 
with an agency's failure to follow procedure prescribed by law, the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act mandates the reviewing court's course of 
action:

The reviewing court shall 
. . . [h]old unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions 
found to be . . . [a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise 
not in accordance with law [or] . . . [w]ithout observance of procedure required 
by law[.]

W.S. 
16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) & (D) (1990).

[¶10]   This court has previously addressed 
the consequences of an agency's failure to follow required procedures in the 
licensing context. In Bowen v. State, Wyoming Real Estate Comm'n, 900 P.2d 1140 
(Wyo. 1995), the Real Estate Commission failed to follow prescribed rules in 
suspending a broker's license. We held that an agency's failure to follow its 
own procedural rules was an arbitrary and capricious act and reversed the 
Commission's order. Id., at 1142. See also, State ex rel. Workers' Compensation 
Div. v. Brown, 805 P.2d 830, 835 (Wyo. 1991).

[¶11]   Appellant contends that because a 
verbatim transcript is not required as part of the record in a contested case 
pursuant to W.S. 16-3-107(o), it should be allowed to prepare a statement of the 
evidence or proceedings from the best available means, W.R.A.P. 3.03, or the 
court should be required to take additional evidence on the matter, W.R.A.P. 
12.07. We find this argument to be irrelevant to appellee's procedural right to 
verbatim reporting - a separate and specific right afforded appellee in both the 
Administrative Procedure Act and the Board's own rules and 
regulations.

CONCLUSION

[¶12]   The requirement of verbatim 
reporting is a procedural mechanism to enable the reviewing court and the 
parties to weigh the grounds for an appeal of an agency decision. Reversal of 
the Board's decision and order was appropriate where there was available no 
verbatim record as required by W.S. 16-3-107(p) and applicable departmental 
rules and regulations.

[¶13]   Affirmed.