Opinion ID: 1311842
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Oral argument before the commissioners.

Text: The parties agree that under sec. 227.12, Stats., the telephone company was entitled to argue . . . orally and in writing before all the members who are to participate in the decision. It is conceded that only one of the three commissioners was present during oral argument; the other two heard the argument on a tape recording. We conclude that the physical presence of only one commissioner is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of sec. 227.12. The department argues that physical presence of all the commissioners is not required. It points out that it is virtually impossible to argue ... in writing before the commissioners if the word before is taken to mean physical presence while the brief is being written. Therefore, it argues that the commissioners must only read the briefs. Thus, the department contends, the requirement of arguing orally ... before the commissioners is satisfied if the arguments are merely heard on tapes. The department's position would emasculate the oral argument requirement. Under its theory, none of the commissioners would have to be present and surely this cannot be what the legislature intended in sec. 227.12, Stats. Moreover, the value of the oral argument would be greatly diminished if the commissioners became mere passive listeners to a recording. The opportunity for oral argument, when called for, should be accepted by arguing openly to the body which is to make the decision. Oral exposition with the questioning that the decision makers engage in presents in many ways a golden opportunity to convince those who decide the matter and affords a last clear chance for sharpening up the issues between the complaining parties. We conclude that the oral argument requirement cannot be satisfied by all the commissioners merely listening to a tape recording. How many commissioners then must be present at this oral argument? Sec. 15.06 (6), Stats., not cited by the parties, provides: ... A majority of the membership of a commission constitutes a quorum to do business .... A similar requirement is imposed upon boards, [9] examining boards, [10] councils, [11] and the supreme court. [12] Additionally, this court has held that in the absence of statute, at common law, a majority of the membership of a board or a committee constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, and a majority vote of the quorum is decisive. [13] Certainly hearing oral argument as required by statute constitutes doing business. Thus we conclude that to satisfy the oral argument requirement of sec. 227.12, Stats., at least two commissioners must be physically present to hear the argument. If this requirement is met, the absent third commissioner may participate in the decision if he does, in fact, listen to a tape recording and read the briefs.