Opinion ID: 1202753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Point 8. Statement of Reasons

Text: VECO complains that the Commission should have filed a statement of reasons explaining why the maximum civil penalties were imposed against it. It points out that the Commission had the discretion to assess less than maximum penalties. AS 15.13.125 contemplates that facts in mitigation may be submitted to the Commission by a person against whom a penalty is assessed. VECO claims that such facts were presented by it, but one cannot tell whether they were considered by the Commission in the absence of Commission findings. We agree that a statement of reasons should be given. It is well established in Alaska that in a formal adjudicative context findings and reasons are required. Kenai Peninsula Borough v. Ryherd, 628 P.2d 557, 562 (Alaska 1981). In Dickinson v. Davis, 277 Or. 665, 561 P.2d 1019, 1022-25 (1977), the Oregon supreme court required the Public Utility Commissioner to state the reasons for his decision to mitigate a penalty by twenty-five percent, pursuant to a similar penalty structure. The relevant statute allowed the Commissioner to mitigate any penalty on such terms as he considered proper. Id. 561 P.2d at 1022. The court wrote: precisely because an agency may see mitigation or remission as acts of grace, and by its mere inaction may impose the maximum penalty, these decisions represent greater threats of irrationality, inequality, and misuse. Id. at 1023. The court therefore required the Commissioner to identify the reasons for his decision to mitigate, since they would reveal the Commissioner's understanding of the statutory policies. [A]rticulation of the commissioner's reasons and their application to the case facilitates development of consistent agency policies as the legislature presumably intended, as well as equality of treatment, at least until the Commissioner adopts a reasoned change of policy. Id. The rationale of the Dickinson court applies to the present case. The Commission issued a written decision containing findings and reasons on all aspects of this case except with respect to the imposition of the penalty. On that subject the Commission gave no reasons why the maximum penalties were being assessed, nor did it discuss VECO's claims in mitigation. The case will be remanded for further findings and reasons as to this aspect of the case. See Ryherd, 628 P.2d at 563 (appropriate remedy is to remand for further statement of reasons where agency's expressed reasons are incomplete).