WHOLE COURT

N O T IC E : M otions for re c ons i de r a tion m us t be

phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our cle r k’s off i c e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Nov em ber 3, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 7 A0 90 2

. GOULD v

. H O U S ING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY

OF AUGUSTA.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

Carri e Go ul d ap peal s t h e s u p eri o r co urt ’ s d i s m i s sal o f her p et i t i o n fo r cert i o rari

i n wh i ch s h e s o u g h t rev i ew o f a h eari n g o ffi cer’ s deci s i o n u p h o l d in g t h e d eci s i o n o f

t h e Ho u s i n g Au t h o ri ty o f t he Ci t y o f Au g u s t a t o t erm i n at e h er Sect i o n 8 v o u ch er

b en efi t s

. W e ag ree wi t h Go u l d th at t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n i s s ub ject to rev i ew

o n cert i o rari b ecau s e t h e h eari n g was q u as i -ju d i ci al i n n at u re an d t h e h eari n g o ffi cer

ex erci s ed j u d i c i a l po wers

. Th us

, we rev ers e t h e s u p eri o r co u rt ’ s d i sm i s s al o f t h e

p et i t i o n

.

Th e q ues t i o n o f w h et h er t h e su p eri or co u rt lack ed j u ri sd i ct i o n i s an i s s u e o f l aw

t h at t h i s co u rt rev i ews d e no v o

. See Go d d a r d v. Ci ty o

f A lb a n y

, 2 8 5 Ga. 8 82

, 8 8 3 (1 )(6 8 4 SE2 d 6 35 ) (2 0 09 ). So v iewed

, t h e reco rd refl ect s t h at t h e Ho u s i ng Au t h o ri t y o f

t h e Ci t y o f Au g u s t a i s t he pu b l i c h o us i n g au t h o r i t y t h at ad m i ni s t ers t h e fed eral

g o v ern m en t ’ s Sect i o n 8 h o u si n g v o u ch ers p ro g ram fo r t h e c i t y o f Au g u s t a an d i s

g o v ern ed b y fed eral reg u l at i o n s co d i fi ed i n 2 4 CFR § 98 2

, et seq

. Th e Un i t ed St at es

Dep art m en t o f Ho u s i n g an d Urb an Dev el o p m en t (“ H UD”) i s t h e reg u l at o ry ag en cy

t h at o v ers ees t h e v o u ch er p ro g ram

. 2 4 CFR § 98 2 .1

. Un der th e v o u ch er p ro g ram

, t h e

h o u s in g au t h ori ty i s s u es vo u ch ers t o q u al i fi ed fam i l i es

, t h o s e f am i l ies s u b m i t t h e

v o u ch ers t o p art i ci p at i n g l an d lo rd s, an d t he l an d l o rd s , i n t u rn

, red eem t h e v o u ch ers

wi t h t h e h ou s i n g au t h ori ty fo r p ay m en t. Th e h o u si n g au t h o ri ty fu n d s i t s reg u l ar

v o u ch er p ay m en t s wi t h an n u al co n t ri b u t i on s fro m H UD, an d th os e co n t ri b u t i o n s are

o n l y p erm i t t ed t o be u s ed fo r reg u l ar v o u ch er p ay m en t s

. See Jo n es v. Ho u s i n g Au t h.

o f Fu l t on Co u n t

y

, 3 1 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5

, 1 7 n

. 2 ( 7 2 6 SE2 d 4 84 ) (2 0 1 2 ). In acco rd an ce

wi t h HUD req u i rem en t s

, t he ho u s i n g au t h o ri t y ad op t ed a wri tt en ad m in i s t rat i v e p l an

t h at es tab l i s h ed p o li ci es fo r ad m i n i s t rat i o n o f t he p ro g ram

. See 24 CFR § 9 8 2 .5 4 (a).

Go u ld was i s s u ed a v o u ch er u nd er fed eral Sect io n 8 Ho u s i ng As s i s t an ce

Pay m en t s Pro g ram fo r Ex i s t i n g Ho u si n g (Sect i o n 8 ) b y t h e h o u s in g au t h o ri t y

, wh i ch

s h e us ed t o ren t a h o m e fro m her l an d l o rd

. A ft er an an n ual i n s p ect i o n

, t h e h o u s i n g

au t h o ri t y d et erm i n ed th at Go u l d ’ s re s i d e n c e d i d n o t m eet t h e h o u s i n g q u al i t y

2s t an d ard s req u i red u n d er fed eral reg u l at i o n s

, an d i t g a v e no t i ce t o Go u l d t h at t h e

v o u ch ers t o h er l an dl o rd wo u l d b e t erm i nat ed

. G o u l d t h en s o u g h t ap p ro v al fro m t h e

h o u s in g au t h o ri t y t o m o ve t o a n ew res id en ce. Pu rs u a n t t o t h e h ou s i n g au t h o ri t y ’ s

ad m i n is t rat i v e p l an

, b efo re Go u l d co u ld b e i s s u ed n ew v ou ch ers fo r a n ew res i d en ce,

t h e h ou s i ng au th o ri t y req u i red th e s u b m i s s io n o f a “ zero b al an ce l et ter” fro m Go u l d ’ s

cu rren t l an dl ord st at i n g t h a t G o u l d d i d n ot o we t h e l an dl o rd an y m o n ey fo r ren t o r

d am ag es . Th e l an d l o rd refu s ed t o i s s u e t h e l et t er.

Th e h ou s i n g au t h o ri t y t h en t erm i n at ed Go u l d ’ s p art i ci pat i o n i n t h e Sect i o n 8

p ro g ram fo r h er fai l u re t o co m p l y w i t h t h e h o u s i ng au t h ori t y fam il y ob l ig at i o n s an d

s u b m i t t h e req u ired d o cu m en t s. Th e h o u s i ng au t h ori t y i n fo rm ed Go u l d o f her r i g h t

t o co nt es t t h e d eci s i on u n d er t h e h o u s i n g au t h ori t y ’ s ad m i n i s t rat i v e p l an

. See 2 4 CFR

§ 9 8 2

. 5 55

. Go u ld req ues t ed an i n fo rm al heari ng an d w as rep res en ted by co un s el wh o

reco rd ed t h e h eari ng

, al t h ou g h n ei t h er a co p y o f th e reco rd i n g no r a t ran s cri p t o f t h e

i n fo rm al h eari n g w as i n cl u d ed i n t he reco rd o n ap p eal

. (Th e h o u s i n g au t h o ri t y ’ s

co u ns el o f reco rd o n ap p eal was t h e heari ng o ffi cer.) T he h eari n g o ffi cer u p h el d t h e

h o u s in g au t h o ri t y ’ s d eci s i o n t o t erm i n at e G o u l d ’s p art ici p at io n in t h e Sect i o n 8

p ro g ram

.

3Go u ld fi l ed a p et i ti o n fo r a wri t o f cert i o rari i n s up eri or co u rt p u rs u a n t to

OCGA § 5 -4 -1 (a) seek i ng rev i ew o f t h e d eci s i o n t o t erm i n at e h er ren tal as s i s t an ce.

Aft er t h e s u p eri o r co u rt i n i t i al l y i s s u ed t he wri t o f cert i o rari

, t h e h o u s i n g au t h o ri t y

m o ved t o d i s m i s s t h e p et i t i o n fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n , arg ui n g t h at t he d eci s i o n was

ad m i n is t rat i v e an d n o t s u b ject t o r e v i ew. Fo l lo wi n g a h eari n g

, t he s up eri o r co u rt

g ran t ed t he h o us i ng au t h o ri t y ’ s m o t i o n t o di s m i s s an d vacat ed t h e wri t o f cert i o rari

,

fi nd i ng th at i t lack ed j u ri s d i ct i o n t o rev i ew t h e d eci s i o n

. We g ran t ed Go u l d ’ s

a p p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal t o co ns i d er wh et h er t h e s u p eri o r co u rt erred i n

d i s m i s s i n g h er p et i t i o n fo r wri t o f cert i o rari fo r l ack o f ju ri sd i ct i o n

.

Un d er OCGA § 5 -4 -1 (a), “ [t ] he wri t of cert i o rari s h al l l i e fo r t h e co rrect i o n o f

erro rs co m

m i t t ed by an y i n feri o r ju d i cat o ry o r an y pe r son e xerci s i n g ju d i ci al po wers ,”

ex cep t in cert ai n cas es n ot ap p l i cab l e h ere. To det erm i n e w het h er a wri t o f cert i o rari

i s t he ap p ro p ri at e m et h o d o f rev i ew,

we m u s t d eci d e wh et h er t he h eari n g o ffi cer wh o s e o rd er i s b ei n g

rev i ew e d ex erci s ed ju di ci al o r q u as i -ju d i ci al p owers

, o r wh et h er th e

o ffi cer m erel y ex erci sed ad m in i st rat i v e o r l eg is lat i v e fu n ct io n s. If t h e

o ffi cer ex erci s ed ju d i ci al p o wers

, h i s o r her act i o n s are s u b ject t o rev i ew

o n cert io rari ; i f, ho wev er, t h e o ffi cer ex erci s ed l eg i sl at iv e, ex ecu t i v e, o r

m i n i s t eri al p owers

, an y erro r can n o t b e co rrect ed b y cert i o rari

. . . . T he

b as i c d i s t in ct i o n b et ween an ad m i n is trat i v e an d a ju d i ci al act b y offi cers

4o t h er t h an ju d g es i s t h at a q u a s i -ju d i ci al act i o n

, co n t rary to an

ad m i n i s trat iv e fu n ct io n, i s o n e i n wh i ch al l p art i es are as a m at t er o f

ri gh t en t i t l ed t o n ot i ce an d t o a h e a r i n g, wi t h t he o p p o rt un i ty affo rd ed

t o p res en t ev i d en ce u n d er ju d i ci al fo rm s o f p ro ced u re; an d t h at n o o ne

d ep ri v ed o f s u ch ri g h t s i s b o u n d b y t he act i o n t ak en

. T h e t es t i s wh et h er

t h e p art ies at in t eres t had a ri g h t u n d er t h e l aw t o d em an d a t ri al i n

acco rd an ce wi t h ju d i ci al p ro ced u re.

Ma ck II v. Ci t

y of At la n t a

, 2 2 7 Ga

. A p p. 30 5

, 3 07 (1 ) (4 8 9 SE2 d 3 57 ) (1 9 9 7 )

(ci t at i o n s

, p u n ct u at i o n

, an d em p has i s o m i t t ed ). In d eci di n g wh et h er t h e h eari n g

o ffi cer ex erci s ed ju di ci al o r q u as i -ju d i ci al p o w ers

, “ t he p art i cu l ar fu n ct i on p erfo rm ed

at t he h eari n g m

us t b e ev al u at ed .” Bd

. o f Co mmr s

. of E f f i n gh a m Co u nt

y v. Fa r mer

,

2 2 8 Ga. Ap p

. 81 9

, 8 2 2 (1 ) (4 9 3 SE2 d 2 1 ) (1 99 7 ) (h o l d i n g t h a t a heari n g au t h o ri t y

ex erci s ed q u as i -ju d i ci al p ower b ecau s e it fu n ct i on ed as a ci v i l s erv i ce b o ard

, an d t h at

t h e ru l in g s o f s u ch t ri b u n al s are q u as i -ju d i ci al i n n at u re).

Th e reco rd refl ect s t h at t h e h o u s i n g au th o ri t y n o t i fi ed G o u ld o f h er ri g h t to

req u es t an “ i n fo rm al heari n g ” i n acco rd an ce wi th fed eral reg u l at i o n s m an d at i n g s u ch

n o t i ce an d h eari n g. 1 2 4 CFR § 9 8 2.5 55 (a ) ( 2 )

, ( c ) (2 ). G o u l d su b m i tt ed s u ch a

1 W e n o t e th at t h e u s e o f t h e t erm “ i n fo rm al h eari n g ” i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e in d et erm i n i n g

wh et h er a h eari n g i s ad m i n i s trat iv e o r q u as i -ju d i ci al

. See Ma ck II

, 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 0 9 (1 )

(“ Des cri p t iv e u s es o f t h i s wo rd are n o t co n t ro l l in g

. It i s n o t t h e d es cri p t i o n o f t h e o ffi ce,

b o d y

, or b oard perfo rm i n g t he act i o n t h at i s s cru t i n i zed ; t h e ch aract er an d n a t u re o f t h e

5req u es t

. Go u l d was rep res en ted b y co u n s el at t he heari n g

. See 2 4 CFR § 98 2 .5 5 5 (c)

(3 ). Sh e was p erm i t t ed to v o i ce h er d i s a g r e e m en t wi t h t he h o u s i n g au t h o ri t y ’ s

d et erm i n at i o n

, i d

. at (c) (2 ) (i i ), t o co n d uct d i s c o v ery

, id

. at (e) (2 ) (i ), t o p res en t

ev i d en ce an d cro s s -ex am i n e wi t n es s es at t h e h eari n g

, i d

. at (e) (5 ), an d, i n acco rd an ce

wi t h t h e h o us i n g au t h o ri t y ’ s ad m i n i s t rat iv e p l an

, t o req ues t t h at t h e h ou s in g au t h o ri t y

s t aff b e p res en t at t h e h eari n g t o an s wer qu es ti o ns

. Th e h eari n g o ffi cer co n d uct ed t h e

h eari n g i n acco rd an ce wi t h th e p ro ced u res es t ab li s h ed i n t h e h o u s i n g au t h o ri t y ’ s

ad m i n is t rat i v e p l an

. 2 4 CFR § 9 8 2

. 5 5 (4 ) (i i). Un d er th e fed eral reg ul at i o n s an d t h e

h o u s in g au t h o ri t y ’ s ad m i n i s t rat i v e p l an

, t h e h eari n g was n o t s u bject to t h e st ri ct ru l es

o f ev id en ce b u t t h e h eari n g o ffi cer was req ui red t o

, an d di d

, m ak e fi n d i n g s b as ed

u p o n th e p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev i d en ce an d t es t i m o n y p res en t ed at t h e h eari n g

. 2 2 4

CFR § 9 8 2 .5 55 (e) (5 ), (6 ).

Th e reco rd d em on s t rat es t h at Go u l d h ad t h e ri g h t to p ro p er n o t i ce an d a fai r

h eari n g

, t h at s h e was affo rd ed t h e o p p o rt u n it y t o p res en t ev i d en ce u n d er ju d i ci al

au t h o ri zed fu n ct i o n co nt ro l s th e i s su e o f wh et h er t h e fu n ct io n i s ju d i ci al o r

q u as i -ju d i ci al .”) (ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

2 Li k e t h e l ab el “ i n fo rm al ,” t h e l ack o f ad h eren ce t o t he s t ri ct ru l es o f ev i d en ce i s n o t

d i s p o s it i v e i n d et erm i n i n g wh et her a h eari n g i s a d m i n is t rat i v e o r q u as i -ju d i ci al

. See

Ch a mb l ee Vi s u a l

s

, LLC v. Ci t

y o f Ch a mb l ee

, 2 7 0 Ga. 3 3 , 3 5 (4 ) (5 06 SE2 d 1 1 3 ) (1 9 9 8 ).

6fo rm s of p ro ced u re, an d th at t h e h eari n g o ffi cer m ad e h i s d eci s i o n aft er d et erm i n i n g

t h e fact s u n d e r a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i den ce s tan d ard an d ap p l y i n g th e ap p ro p ri at e

l aw. Th u s t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d e c i s i o n was t h e res ul t o f q u as i -ju d i ci al act i o n

. See

Ci t y of Cu mmi n g v. Fl o wer

s

, 30 0 Ga. 8 2 0, 8 2 3 -8 2 4 (3 ) (7 9 7 SE2 d 8 4 6 ) (2 0 1 7); S o u th

Vi ew Cemet er

y As s n . v. Ha i l ey , 1 9 9 Ga. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (4 ) (3 4 SE2 d 8 6 3 ) (1 9 45 ).

Th e d i s s en t ch aract eri zes o u r o p i n i o n as i m p ro p erl y ex p an d i n g th e ro l e o f t h e

ju d i ci ary

. Th at i s a m i s ch aract eri zat i o n

. Th e i s s u e b e f o r e u s i s n arro w: wh et h er

Geo rg i a l aw p ro v id es cert i o rari rev i ew i n cas es l ik e t h i s o n e.

Th e d i s s en t fi n d s t h at t h e h eari n g was ad m i n i s t rat i v e i n s tead o f q u as i -ju d i ci al

p ri m ari l y f

o r t w o r eas on s : b ecau s e t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s act i o n s are s u b ject t o t h e

a u t h o ri t y g ran t ed t o h im b y t h e h ou s i n g au t h o ri ty an d b ecau s e u n d er cert ai n

ci rcu m s t an ces t h e h eari n g offi cer’ s d eci s i o n i s n o t b i n d i n g o n t h e p art i es

. Nei t h er

reas on s u p p o rt s t h e d et erm i n at io n t h at t h e p ro ceed i n g was ad m i n i s t rat i ve in s t ead o f

q u as i-ju di ci al

.

Th e au t h o ri ty an d res po n s i b i l i t y v es ted i n th e h eari n g o ffi cer u n d er t h e h o u s i n g

au t h o ri t y ’ s ad m i n i s t rat i v e pl an req u i red h im t o det erm in e “ wh et her t h e act i o n,

i n act io n o r d eci s io n o f t h e A u gu s t a H o u s i n g Au t h o ri t y [was ] l eg al i n acco rd an ce wi th

HUD reg u l at i o n s an d [t h e] [a] d m i n i s t r a t i v e [p ] l an bas ed u p o n t h e ev id en ce an d

7t es t i m o ny p ro v i d ed at t h e h eari n g .” See 2 4 CFR §§ 9 8 2.5 4

, 9 8 2.5 5 5 (a). Co n t rary to

t h e d is s en t ’ s po s i t io n

, t h e h eari n g o ffi cer w as ch arg ed wi t h ex erci s i n g h i s o wn

ju d g m en t u n der th e fed eral l aw ap p l i cab l e t o t h e h o us i n g au t h ori t y ’ s d eci s i o n

. He was

req u i red t o “ d et erm i n e t he fact s an d ap p l y t h e [ap p ro p ri at e] l eg al s t an d ard s t o t h em

,

wh i ch i s a d eci si o n-m ak in g p ro ces s ak i n t o a ju d i ci al act .” Ci t y of Cu mmi n g

, 3 0 0 Ga.

at 8 2 4 (3 ). Becau s e h e was “ cal l ed u p o n t o m ak e fact u al d e t e r m i n a t i o n s an d t hu s

ad ju d i cat e, [h e was ] act i ng i n a q u as i-ju d ici al cap aci t y

. ” Id

. (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ).

An d i t i s i rrel ev an t t h at i n cert ai n li m i t ed ci rcu m s t an ces a h ou s in g au t h o ri t y can

m ak e a “ d et erm i n [at i o n ] t h at i t i s n o t b o un d b y a h e a r in g d eci s i o n

. . . .” 2 4 CFR §

9 8 2 .5 5 5 (f) (3 ). In ord er t o effect u at e s u ch a d et erm in at i o n

, t h e a u t h o ri ty “ m u s t

p ro m p t ly n o t i fy t h e fam i ly o f t he d et erm in at i o n

, a n d o f th e reas o n s fo r t h e

d et erm i n at i o n

. ” Id

. Here t h ere h as b ee n n o s u ch n o t i ce an d n o s u ch d et erm i n at i o n.

Th e ad m i n i s t rat i v e d eci si o n b efo re u s was “ t he o p erat i v e d eci s io n o f t h e ag en cy o n

t h e m at t er.” See W

o l f e v. Bd

. of Reg en ts o f t h e Un i v. S

ys t em of Ga

. , 3 0 0 G a. 2 2 3

, 2 2 9

(2 ) (c) (7 9 4 SE2 d 8 5 ) (2 0 16 ).

Un d er t h e ad m i n i st rat i v e p l an

, t he au t h ori t y m ay m ak e s u ch a d et erm i n at i o n o f

n o n -b i n di n g nes s o n l y ab o u t h e a r i n g d eci s i on s t h at : “ co n cern m at t ers i n wh i ch t h e

8Au g u s t a Ho u s in g Au t h o ri t y is n o t req ui red t o p ro vi d e an o p p ort u n i t y fo r a h eari n g;

. . . co n fl i ct wi th o r co nt rad ict HUD reg u l at i o n s o r req u i rem en t s ;

. . . co n fl i ct wi th o r

co n trad i ct fed eral

, st at e, or l o c a l l aws ; o r

. . . ex ceed t h e au t ho ri t y o f t h e p ers o n

c o n d u c t in g t h e h eari n g .” See al s o 2 4 CFR § 9 8 2 .5 5 5 (f) (1 ) (a p u b l ic h o u s i n g

a u t h o r i t y i s n o t b o un d b y a h eari n g d eci s i o n t h at co n cern s “ a m at t er fo r wh i ch t h e

[h o u si n g au t h ori t y ] i s n o t req u ired t o p ro v i d e an o p p o rt u n i t y fo r an i n fo rm al h eari n g

u n d er t h i s sect i o n

, o r t h at o t h erwi s e ex ceed s t h e au t h o ri t y o f t he p ers o n co n d u ct i n g

t h e h eari n g u n der t h e [h o u s i n g au th o ri t y ] h eari ng pro ced u res .”). In o th er wo rd s

, t h e

h o u s in g au t h o ri t y

i s b o u n d u n l es s fed eral l aw d o es n o t req u i re a h eari n g i n t h e fi rs t

p l ace (s o t h e res u l t in g d eci si o n i s s u p erfl u o u s ) or w h en t h e h eari n g o ffi cer d o es n ot

h av e t h e au t h o ri t y t o act o r wh en t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s deci s i o n v i o l at es fed eral

, s t at e,

o r l o c a l l a w

. Ot h erwi s e t h e h o u s in g au t h o ri t y i s b o un d b y a h eari n g o ffi cer’ s

d eci s i o n s

.

Th e d i ss en t q u es t i o ns o u r fai l u re t o ad dres s t h e p ro pri et y o f cert i orari rev i ew

i n s i tu at i o n s wh ere t h e h o u si n g au t ho ri t y d et erm i n es t h at i t i s n ot bo u n d b y t h e

h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s io n s o th at t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s io n i s n o t fi n al

. Bu t “ [t ] h e

h y p o t h et i cal d i ffi cu l t y rai s ed b y [t h e d is s en t ] i s n o t b efo re u s

, an d we m ay n o t i s s u e

a h y p ot h et i cal o r ad v i s o ry o pi n i o n

. ” Ma ck v. Ga

. Au t o P a wn

, 2 6 2 Ga. Ap p. 27 7

, 2 8 9

9(2 ) (5 8 5 SE2 d 6 6 1 ) (2 0 0 3 ). It i s n o t d i s p ut ed t h at t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s deci s i o n i n t h i s

cas e was fi n al

.

Th e d i s sen t rel i es o n cas es in wh i ch t h e d eci s i o n at i ss u e was o n l y ad v i s o ry

,

l eav i ng t h e u l t i m at e deci s io n t o t h e d i s cret i o n o f a fi nal d eci s io n m ak er. Su ch i s n ot

t h e cas e h ere. In La s ka r

v. Bd

. o f Reg en t s o f t he Un i v. S

ys t em o f Ga

. , 3 2 0 Ga. Ap p.

4 1 4 (7 4 0 SE2 d 1 7 9) (2 0 1 3 ), we ad d res s ed wh et h er a t erm i n at ed Geo rg i a Tech

p ro fes s o r co u l d s eek rev i ew o f h i s t erm i n at i o n u s in g a wri t o f cert io rari u n d er OCGA

§ 5 -4 -1

. W e d et erm i n ed t hat t h e r e v i e w o f h i s d i s ch arg e b y a facu l ty h eari n g

co m m i t t ee was n ot q u as i -ju d i ci al b u t ad m i n i s t rat i v e b ecau s e t h e c o m m i tt ee o n l y

s u b m i t t ed a “ reco m

m en dat i o n ” t o t h e un i vers i t y p res id en t

, wh o w as free t o accep t o r

reject t h e reco m

m en d at i o n

. Id

. at 4 1 8

. (Ou r Su p rem e Co u rt h as cas t s o m e d o u b t o n

t h i s h o l d i n g i n La s ka r , p o i n t ed l y “ ex pres s [i n g ] n o o p i n i o n” o n it

. W o l f e

, 3 0 0 Ga. at

2 2 9 (2 ) (c)). Here, o n t h e o t h er h an d, t h e au th o ri t y was n ot free to accep t o r reject t h e

h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n ; i t co u l d r e j e c t t h e d eci s i o n o n l y u n d er t h e l i m i t ed

ci rcu m s t an ces d es cri b ed ab o v e. An d i t d i d n o t d o s o

. Un li k e t h e co m m i t tee’ s d eci s i o n

i n La ska r , t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n h ere was fi n al

.

S i m il arl y

, in W

h a t It Is

, In c. v. Ja cks on

, 1 4 6 Ga. Ap p. 5 7 4 (2 4 6 SE2 d 6 9 3 )

(1 9 7 8), w e h el d t h at a d eci s i on b y a l i cen s e rev i ew b o ard t o rev o k e a l i q u o r l i cen s e

10was n o t a j u d i c i a l p r o ceed i n g b ecau s e “ t h e b o ard was no t au t h o ri zed t o en t er an y

ju d g m en t b u t o n l y was p erm i t t ed t o m ak e a reco m m en d at i o n t o t h e m ay o r wh i ch was

n o t b i n d i n g o n h i m .” Id . at 5 76 . Ag ai n t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n h ere was n o t a

m ere reco m

m en d a t i o n th at au to m at i cal l y req u ired accep t an ce or reject i o n b y t h e

h o u s in g au t h o ri t y

. It w as a fi n al d eci s i o n t h at b o u n d t h e h o u s i ng au t h o ri t y an d Go u l d.

“ Becau s e o f t h e s u bs t an t i al d i fferen ces b et ween th e fu n c t i o n o f th e h eari n g

o ffi cer[] h ere an d t h e fu nct i o n o f th e h eari n g o ffi cers i n t h e cas es ci ted b y [t h e

d i s s e n t ] (i .e., La s ka r an d Ja cks o n

, [] ), t h o s e cas es are i n ap p o s i t e.” S co t t v. At l a n ta

In d ep en den t Sch o o l S

ys t em

, 2 0 1 4 W L 1 2 6 2 1 23 0

, at * 1 2 (N.D. Ga. 2 0 14 ) (ru l i n g t h at

p l ai n t i ffs ’ 4 2 USC § 1 9 83 cl ai m s s h o u ld be d i s m i s s ed b ecau s e t h e p l ai n t iffs h ad an

ad eq uat e rem ed y at l aw

— t h e w ri t o f cert i o rari ; h eari n g o ffi cer’ s act i on s were q u as i

ju d i c i a l e v en t h o u g h h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n was s ub ject t o l i m i t ed ap p eal

p ro ced ures ).

In t h i s cas e, t h e heari n g o ffi cer ex erci s ed au t h o ri t y u n d er fed eral l aw,

c o nd u ct ed a h eari n g i n acco rd an ce wi t h ju d i ci al p ro ced u re, an d h i s d eci s i o n w a s

b i n d i n g . Th e h eari ng o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n was t h us q u as i -ju d i ci al

. T h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t

erred i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e p et it i on fo r wri t o f cert i o rari

.

11Ju d

g men t r ever

s ed

. B a r n es

, P. J., Mi l l er

, P. J., Do yl e, an d R ees e, JJ., co n cu r

.

Br a nch , McMi ll i a n , Mer ci er , a n d Bet hel , JJ., d i s s en t

s.

12A 1 7 A0 9 0 2

. GOULD v

. H OUSING AUTHORITY OF T HE CITY

OF AUGUSTA.

B E T H E L , J u d g e, d i s s en t i n g

.

Th e m ajo ri t y ’ s o p in i o n i n t h i s cas e i m p ro p erl y ex p an d s t h e ro l e o f t h e

ju d i ci ary

. 1 Th e reg u l at i o n s go v ern i n g t h e h o us i n g a u t h o ri ty wi t h res p ect t o t h e

1 Th e m ajo ri t y cl ai m s t o b e an s weri n g o n l y a “ n arro w” qu es t i o n rel at ed t o t h i s cas e.

Yet

, n o th i n g s o l i m i t s it s ho l d i n g in t h i s cas e. Rat h er, as i n al l s uch cas es

, it i s t h e p ro ces s

an d p ro ced ures t h at are ju d g ed t o b e ei t h er ad m i n i s t r a t i v e o r q u as i -ju d ici al

. T h u s

, ev ery

cas e u s i n g t h e p ro ced ure u sed i n th i s cas e wi l l n o w b e d eem ed q u as i -ju d i ci al an d s ub ject

t o cert i o rari rev i ew i n o u r s u p eri o r co u rt s

.t erm i n at i o n o f b en efi t s p ro v i de ex ped i en t an d d eci si v e act io n wh i le at t h e s am e t i m e

en s u ri n g wel fare reci p ien t s recei v e t h e m in i m u m p ro ced u ral s afeg u ard s affo rd ed by

t h e D u e Pro ces s Cl au s e of t h e Fo u rt een th A m en d m en t

. In t h i s cas e, t h e h eari n g

o f f i c e r’ s act i on s are s u b

ject t o t h e au t h o ri t y g ran t ed t o i t b y AHA as o p p o s ed t o a n

ex erci s e o f i t s o wn j u d gm en t u n d er t h e law. 2 Mo reo v er, u n d er al l ci rcu m s t an ces

wh ere t he au t h o ri t y d et erm i n es t h at t h e h eari n g offi cer c o m m i t t ed an erro r, t h e

h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n s are n o t bi n d i n g o n t h e pa r ti es

. Co n s eq u en t l y

, t h e t ri al co u rt

d i d n o t err i n fi n d i n g t h at t h e i n fo rm al h eari n g was ad m i ni s t rat i ve i n n at u re an d i t

t h erefo re l ack ed ju ri sd i ct i on t o rev i ew i t . Acco rd in g l y , I res p ect fu ll y d is sen t

.

Un d er OCGA § 5 -4 -1 (a), “ [t ] h e wri t o f cert i o rari s h al l l i e fo r t he co rrect i o n o f

erro rs co m

m i t t ed by an y i n feri o r ju d i cat o ry o r an y pe r son e xerci s i n g ju d i ci al po wers ,”

ex cep t i n cert ai n cas es n ot ap p l i cab l e h ere. T he m ajo ri ty c o r r e c t l y n o tes t h at t h i s

Co u rt h as h el d t h at i f t h e h eari n g o ffi cer en gag ed i n a deci s i o n -m ak i ng pro ces s wh i ch

r e q u i red h i m t o ex am i n e ev i d en ce an d ap pl y l eg al st an d ard s

, t hen h e m a d e a

q u as i-ju di ci al deci s i o n

. S ee Ma ck II

, 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 0 7 (1 ); a cco r d La s ka r v. Bd

.

2 S ee M a ck II

, 2 2 7 G a. Ap p

. at 3 0 8 (1 ) (q u ot in g S e. Gr eyh o u n d Li n es

, 1 8 1 Ga. at 7 8

-

7 9 (d es cri b i n g ju d i ci al act i o n as “ an ad ju d i cat i o n u p o n t h e ri g h t s of p art i es wh o i n g en eral

ap p ear or are b ro u gh t b efo re t h e t ri b u n al b y n o t ice o r p r o c e s s

, an d u po n wh o s e cl ai m s

s o m e d eci s i o n o r j u d gm en t i s ren dered

. . . . [T] he t ri b u nal m u s t ex erci s e i t s o wn ju d g m en t

u n d er t h e l aw, an d n o t act u n der a m an d at e fro m an o t h er p o wer.”).

2o

f Reg en t s o f Un i v. S ys

. o f Ga

. , 3 2 0 Ga. Ap p

. 4 1 4, 4 1 6-1 7 (7 4 0 SE2 d 1 7 9) (2 0 1 3 )

(ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n om i tt ed ). Ho wev er, Geo rg i a co u rt s h av e al s o reco g n i zed

t h at fo r t h ere t o b e ju d i ci al act i o n

, t h e “ co n cl us i o n m u s t b e bi nd i ng u p o n th e p art i es

u n t i l rev ers ed o r s et as id e i n t h e m an n er p ro v i ded b y l aw fo r o pen i n g u p ju d g m en t s

o f co u rt s.” S

e. G r eyh ou n d Li n es v. Ga

. Pu b

. S er v. Co mm’n

, 1 8 1 Ga. 7 5

, 8 3 (1 8 1 SE

8 3 4 ) (1 9 3 5 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i tt ed ); s ee a l s o La ska r

, 3 2 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 1 7.

In cas es wh ere t h is Co u rt h as p rev i o u sl y fo u n d h eari n g s t o b e qu as i -ju d i ci al

,

t h e h eari n g o ffi cer ex erci s ed h i s o r her o wn ju d g m en t u nd er th e l aw rat h er t h an act i n g

u n d er a m an d at e fro m an o t h er au t h o ri ty

, an d t h e d eci s i o n of t h e h eari n g o ffi cer was

b i n d i n g o n t h e p art i es wi t ho u t ex cep t i o n. See e.g

. Ci t y o f Cu mmi n g v. Fl o wer

s

, 3 0 0

Ga. 8 2 0 , 8 2 4 -8 2 5 (3 ) (7 9 7 SE2 d 8 4 6 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (h eari n g was q u as i -ju d i ci al wh ere t h e

zo n in g b o ard ex erci s ed it s o wn au t h ori t y u n d er zo ni n g o rd in an ce an d i t s d eci s i o n was

b i n d i n g an d “ ak i n t o a ju d i ci al act ”); Ro z er v. Ma yo r

, 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 7 8

, 1 8 0 -8 1 (7 1 2

SE2 d 5 9 6 ) (2011) ( qua si-

j udic ia l wh ere ci t y co u n ci l ex erci s ed i ts rev o cat i o n au t h o ri t y

u n d er t h e al co ho l b ev erag e ord in an ce an d i s s u ed a fi n al deci s i o n t h at was b i n d i n g o n

t h e p art i es ); Cr u mp l er v

. H e n ry Ct y

, 2 5 7 Ga. Ap p

. 61 5

, 6 1 7-6 1 8 (5 7 1 SE2 d 8 2 2 )

(2 0 0 2) (co u n t y m an ag er ex erci s ed au t h o ri t y to affi rm p o l i ce o ffi cer’ s d em o t i o n u n d er

co u nt y o rd i n an ce an d p erfo rm ed t h e fu n ct i o n of a ci v i l s erv i ce b o ard wh o s e ru l i ng s

3are t rad i ti o n al l y qu as i -ju d ici al in n at u re); Ma ck II

, 2 2 7 Ga. A p p

. at 3 0 7-0 8 (1 ) (act i o n

was q uas i -ju d i ci al wh ere h eari n g offi cer ap p l i ed l eg al s t an d ard s o f res j u d icat a an d

co l l at eral es to pp el ).

W h i l e t h e m ajo ri t y s co ffs at t h e h o u s i n g au t h o ri t y ’ s ab i l i t y u n d er “ cert ai n

ci rcu m s t an ces ” t o d et erm i n e t h at i t i s no t b o un d b y a h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n as

i rrel ev an t

, 3 t h e m ajo ri t y d o es n o t ad d res s t h e ju d i ci ary ’ s au t h o ri ty t o rev i e w s u ch

m at t ers wh en t h e au t h o ri t y do es rev ers e t h e deci s i o n o f th e h eari n g o ffi cer. Fo r

i n s t an ce, AHA wo u ld n o t b e b o u n d wh ere t h e d eci s io n o f th e heari ng o ffi cer i s

“ [c] o n trary t o HUD reg u lat i o n s o r req u i rem en t s

, o r o t herwi s e co n t rary t o fed e r a l

,

s t at e, o r l o cal l aw[,] ” o r wh ere t h e h eari n g o f f i c e r o t h erwi s e ex ceed s h is au t h o ri t y

u n d er t he h eari n g p ro ced u res

. 4 24 CFR § 9 8 2 .5 5 5 (f) (1 ) & (2 ). T h e reg u l at i on s d o n ot

d efi n e w h at co n s t i t u t es a h eari n g o ffi cer “ ex ceed i n g h i s au t h o ri ty ” or wh at

, i f an y

,

reco u rs e a reci p i en t h as t o co n t es t s u ch a fi n d i n g

. N o t ab l y m i s si n g fro m t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s

3 In fact

, as t he m ajo ri ty i t s el f has su m m ari zed

, t h e au th o ri t y m ay r e ject t h e

d e t e r m i n at i o n wh en “ fed eral l aw d o es n o t req u i re a h eari n g i n t he fi rs t p l ace (s o t h e

res u l t in g deci s i o n i s s u p erfl u o u s ) o r wh en t h e h eari n g o ffi cer d oes n o t h av e t h e au t h o ri t y

t o act o r wh en t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n v i o l at es fed eral

, s t at e, o r l o cal l aw.” Far fro m

o b s cu re, t h i s l i s t co v ers t h e v as t m ajo ri t y o f p o s s i b l e d efect s i n s u ch a d et erm i n at i o n

.

4 Th o u g h no t ap p l i cab l e t o t h e cas e befo re u s, AHA al s o wo u l d n o t b e b o u n d b y a

h eari n g d e c i s i o n “ [c] on cern i n g a m at t er fo r wh ich [i t ] i s n ot req u i red t o p ro v i d e an

o p p o rt un i ty

fo r an i n fo rm al h eari n g [.] ” S ee 24 CFR § 9 8 2 .5 55 (f) (3 ).

4an al y s i s i s an as s es s m en t of wh et h er a wri t o f cert i o rari wo u l d l i e in t he aft erm at h o f

t h e au t h o ri t y ex erci s i ng i t s ri g h t o f rev i ew an d rev ers al

. Un d er t h e m a jo ri t y ’ s

ap p ro ach

, t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt ap p aren t l y wo u l d be au th o ri zed t o rev i ew t h e h o u s i n g

au t h o ri t y ’ s d et erm i n at io n th at i t n o t b e b o un d —ev en t h o u g h s u ch a d eci s io n i s cl earl y

a fu n ct i o n o f it s ad m in is t rat i v e p o wer. Si m p ly b ecau se s u ch a d et erm i n at i o n was n ot

m ad e i n t h i s cas e do es n o t m ak e t h i s s cen ari o an y l es s wo r t h y o f t he m ajo ri t y ’ s

co n si d erat io n

.

M o reo v er, t h i s cas e i s d i s t i n g ui s h ab l e fro m Fl o wer s

, Ro z er

, Cr ump l er

, an d

Ma ck II b ecau s e i n each o f th o s e cas es

, th e d eci s i o n o f th e h eari n g o ffi cer was fi n al

an d bi n d i n g o n t h e p art i es

. Becau s e t h e ad m i n i s t rat iv e p l an at i s s ue i n t h i s cas e al l o ws

fo r AHA t o d et erm in e w h et h er i t wi l l b e b o u n d by t h e h eari n g offi cer’ s d eci s i o n

, t h e

h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n can n o t b e co n s i d ered a fi nal ju d g m en t

.

Th u s

, t h e fu n ct i o n o f t h e h eari n g o ffi cer i n t h i s cas e m o re cl os el y res em b l es t h e

facu l t y h eari n g co m

m i t t ee i n La s ka r

, 5 an d t h e l i q u o r l i cen se rev i ew b o ard i n W h a t It

Is

, In c. v. Ja cks o n

. 6 In La ska r

, a u ni v ers it y ’ s facu l t y h an db o ok au th o ri zed a facu l t y

5 3 2 0 Ga. Ap p . at 4 1 8 -1 9

.

6 1 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. 5 7 4

, 5 7 4 -5 7 5 (2 4 6 SE2 d 69 3 ) (1 9 7 8 ) reced ed fro m o n o t h er g ro u n d s

b y

, Ma ck II

, 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p . at 3 0 9 (1 ).

5h eari n g co m m it t ee t o co n d u ct a h eari ng an d i n v es t i g at e ch arg es ag ai ns t a p ro fes s o r.

3 2 0 G a. A p p

. at 41 5

. Aft er t h e fo rm al h eari n g

, t h e co m m i tt ee co n cl u d e d t h at t h e

ch arg es p ro v en ag ai n s t a t en u red p ro fes s o r warran t ed t erm in at i o n o f t he p ro fes s o r’ s

em pl o y m en t an d s u b m it t ed its f

indings a n d r e c om

m e nda tion to t h e sch o o l’ s p res i d en t

.

Id

. at 41 5

, 41 8

. Th e fi n al act res u l ti n g i n t h e p ro fes s o r’ s d i sch arg e was i s s ued b y t h e

s ch o ol ’ s p res i den t

. Id

. at 4 15

. Si m i l arl y

, i n W h a t It Is

, In c.

, a ci t y o rd i n an ce

au t h o ri zed a l i cen se r e v i ew b o ard t o co n d u ct h eari n g s

, gat h er fact s

, an d m ak e

reco m m en d at i o ns t o t h e m ay o r reg ard i n g t he rev o cat i o n o r s u s p en s i o n o f l i q u o r

l i cen ses

. 1 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 7 5 -7 6

. Th e m ay o r ret ai n ed t h e au t h o ri t y t o ap p ro v e o r

d i s ap p ro v e t h e reco m

m en d at i o n

. Id . at 5 7 6

.

H e r e, j u s t as i n La s ka r an d W h a t It Is

, In c.

, th e h eari n g o ffi cer was g i v en

au t h o ri t y t o m ak e fi n d in gs o f fact an d i s su e a d eci s io n u n d er t h e ad m i n i s t rat i v e p l an

.

T h u s

, t h e fact t h at t h e fi n al act i n th i s pro ces s o ccu rs wh en AHA i s s at i s fi ed t h at

h eari n g o f

f i cer’ s d eci s i o n i s bi n d i n g il lu s t rat es t h e ad m i n i s trat i v e nat u re o f t h e

i n fo rm al h eari ng

. 7 S

ee 2 4 CFR § 9 8 2 .5 5 5 (f) (1 )-(3 ). A HA’ s ro l e, l i k e th at o f t h e

u n i v ers i t y p res i d en t in La s ka r an d t h e l iq u o r l i cen s e b o ard i n W h a t It Is

, In c.

, i s ak in

7 AHA’ s ad m i n i st rat i v e p l an d o es no t ad d res s t h e p ro ced u re t o b e fo ll owed wh en

AHA fi n ds t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci s i o n ru n s afo u l o f 2 4 CFR § 9 8 2 .5 5 5 (f).

6t o a rev i ewi n g co u rt i n t h at i t s erv es as t h e fi n al arb i t er o f h o u s i ng a s s i s t an ce

t erm i n at i o n s

. In n o ne o f t h e cas es wh ere t h i s Co u rt h as p rev i o us l y fo u n d h eari n g s to

b e q uas i -ju di ci al co u l d a p art y t o t h e heari n g un d er an y ci rcu m s t an ce l at er d eci d e t h at

t h e h eari n g o ffi cer’ s d eci si o n was n o n -b i n d i n g

.

Th e m ajo ri ty ad o p t s t h e p o s i t i o n t h at b ecau s e t h e heari n g o ffi cer was req u i red

t o m ak e fact u al d e t e r m i n a ti o n s b as ed o n t h e p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev id en ce, t h e

i n fo rm al h eari n g was co n d u ct ed i n acco rd an ce wi t h ju di ci al p ro ced u re an d t h erefo re

q u as i-ju di ci al . Th e m ajo ri t y i g n o res fact s i n t h e reco rd t h at b el i e t hi s co n cl u s i o n

.

[I] t m u s t s t i ll b e reco g n i zed t h at t h e as cert ai n m en t o f fact s

, o r th e

reach i n g o f co n cl u s io n s u p o n ev i d en ce t ak en i n t h e co u rs e o f a h eari n g

o f p art i es in t eres t ed

, m ay b e en t i rel y p ro p er i n th e ex erci s e o f ex ecu t iv e

o r l eg i s l at i v e, as d i s t i n g u i s h ed fro m ju d i ci al

, po wers

. . . . It i s t h e nat u re

o f t h e fi n al act t hat d et erm i n es th e n at u re o f th e p rev i ou s i n q u i ry

. . . . A

b o d y d oes n o t n eces s ari l y ex erci s e ju d i ci al p o w ers b ecau s e i t m ay m ak e

an i n v es t i g at i o n o r u s e d i s cret i o n i n act i ng i n a g i v en cas e.

S e. Gr eyh o u n d

Li n es , 1 8 1 Ga. at 8 1 (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

7AHA’ s ad m i n i s t rat i v e p lan o u t l i nes a way fo r Sect i o n 8 part i ci p an t s

, wh et h er

rep res en t ed b y co un s el

, ad v i s o r o r fri en d, to co n t es t ad m in i s t rat iv e d eci s i on s

u n e n cu m b ered b y t h e l eg al t ech n i cal i t ies o f ju d i ci al p ro ced u res

. Pu rs u an t t o t h e

i n fo rm al h eari n g p ro ced u res

, wh i ch cl o s el y m i rro r fed eral reg u lat i o n s

, n ei t h er AHA

n o r t h e p art i ci p an t s are b o u nd b y t h e ru l es o f ev i d en ce i n p res en t in g i n fo rm at i o n

, an d

t h e h eari n g o ffi cer i s n o t req u i red to b e an o ffi cer o f t h e co u rt

. S ee 2 4 CFR § 9 8 2 .5 5 5

(e) (5 ). W h i l e th e h eari n g o ffi cer i s req u ired t o m ak e f i n d i n g s bas ed u p o n t h e

ev i d en ce an d t es t i m o n y

p res en t ed at t he h eari n g

, t he h eari ng o ffi cer i s n o t req u i red

t o hav e k n o wl ed g e o f j u d ici al pro ced u re an d co n cep t s

. Th e i n fo rm al h eari n g s are n ot

t ran s cri b e d o r reco rd ed

, u n l es s req u es t ed b y t h e p art i es

, an d t h ey are m em o ri al i zed

o n l y b y referen ce i n t h e h eari ng o f f i c e r ’s wri tt en det erm in at io n n o t i ce. In n ei t h er

AHA’ s ad m i n i s t rat i v e p lan n o r HUD reg u l at i o n s are th e p art ies o r t he heari n g o ffi cer

g ran t ed t h e au t h ori ty

t o s u b p o en a wi t n es s es

, s wear wi t n es s es

, p u n i s h fo r co n t em p t

,

o r co m p el p art ies t o at t en d

.

As t he Su p rem e Co u rt o f t h e Un i t ed St at es art i c u l a t ed i n Go l d b er g v. Kel l y

,

“ t h e p re-t erm in at i o n h eari n g need n o t t ak e t he fo rm o f a ju d i ci al o r q u as i -ju d i ci al t ri al

. . . [T] h e s t at u t o ry ‘ fai r heari ng ’ wi l l p ro v i d e t h e reci pi en t wi th a fu l l ad m in i s t rat i v e

rev i ew

. . . [T] h e p re-t erm i n at i o n h eari n g h as o n e fu n ct i on o n l y : t o p ro d uce an i n i t i al

8d et erm i n at i o n o f t h e v al i d it y o f t h e wel fare d ep art m en t ’ s g ro u n d s fo r di s co nt i n u an ce

o f p ay m en t s i n ord er t o p ro t ect a reci p ien t ag ai n s t an err o n e o u s t erm in at i o n o f h i s

b en efi t s

. ” 3 9 7 U.S. 2 54

, 2 66 -6 7 ( I I) (9 0 SCt 1 0 1 1

, 25 L Ed 2 d 2 87 ) (1 97 0 ). Th e

m ajo ri ty ’ s al l o w an ce o f ju d i ci al rev i ew o f t h es e h eari n g s wi l l s erv e to req u i re m o re

fo rm al i t y i n t h e p ro ces s

, i n creas e t h e ad m in i s t rat i v e co st o f t h e p ro g ram

,

u n n eces sari l y co n s u m e j u d ici al res o u rces

, an d ex pan d th e t i m e re q u i red t o res o l v e

d i s p u t es

. In do i n g s o

, t h e m ajo ri t y v en t u res b ey o n d t h e req u i rem en t s art i cu l at ed in

Go l d b e r g

. Th is i s a m i s t ak e. I wo u l d t h erefo re affi rm t h e d eci s i o n o f t he s u p eri o r

co u rt d i s m i s si n g t h i s cas e fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

9