Opinion ID: 1403992
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Do the provisions of the APA govern the grievance proceedings in this case?

Text: Article 8 of the APA deals with administrative adjudication. AS 44.62.330(a) provides, in part, that [t]he procedure of the state boards, commissions, and officers listed in this subsection... shall be conducted under AS 44.62.330-44.62.630. This procedure, including, but not limited to ... conduct of hearings ... shall be governed by this chapter... . AS 44.62.330(a)(45) lists the University of Alaska as a covered entity, with the proviso except to the extent that its inclusion is inconsistent with the provisions of AS 14.40. McGrath and Mohr argue that AS 44.62.330(a)(45) mandates that their grievances be processed in accordance with procedures called for by the APA. The University advances numerous arguments in support of the superior court's grant of summary judgment and its holding that the APA is inapplicable to the proceedings in question. [2] More particularly, the University contends that the legislative history of AS 44.62.330(a) demonstrates that the legislature never intended to interfere with the Board of Regents' independent power to manage and govern the internal affairs of the University; that the University's grievance procedures are reasonable; that application of the APA to the University's grievance proceedings would be inconsistent with AS 14.40; that the APA by its very nature does not apply in the circumstances of this case; that grievance procedures are not procedures within AS 44.62.330; that the APA only applies to adjudicative facts not to legislative facts; and that the statutory framework governing personnel matters for state agencies and other public employees shows that the APA does not apply to the University's grievance procedures. We have reviewed all of the University's contentions listed above and conclude that they should be rejected. Therefore, the APA's procedures must govern any grievance hearings in the case at bar.
As noted at the outset, AS 44.62.330-.630 governs the adjudicative procedures of the University except to the extent that its inclusion is inconsistent with the provisions of AS 14.40. AS 44.62.330(a)(45). The University notes that under AS 14.40.170(b)(1), the Board of Regents may adopt reasonable rules, orders and plans ... for the good government of the university... . The University then argues that since its rules governing grievance procedures are reasonable, an application of the APA procedures to its grievance proceedings would be inconsistent with the authority of the Board to manage the University. More specifically, the University contends that the APA procedures are inconsistent with AS 14.40 because they are more extensive and costly than its own reasonable grievance procedures, and therefore they are precluded under AS 44.62.330(a)(45). We think these contentions are adequately and correctly answered by Judge Serdahely's opinion Aden v. University of Alaska, No. 3AN-85-17179 Civil (Alaska Super., Feb. 2, 1987). In rejecting contentions similar to those advanced by the University in the instant case, Judge Serdahely held the following: The Court concludes that AS 44.62.330 et seq. does apply to Defendant University of Alaska and that Defendant's grievance proceedings must comply with the provisions of such Act. In so ruling, the Court notes that on its face, the APA applies to Defendant University of Alaska. AS 44.62.330(45) [sic] expressly provides that the provisions of the Act apply to the University of Alaska, except to the extent that its inclusion is inconsistent with the provisions of AS 14.40. Having reviewed the provisions of AS 14.40, particularly including the powers and duties of the University President as defined in AS 14.40.210-.220, the Court concludes that there is nothing inconsistent between such provisions and the APA. Clearly, the President's power to appoint professors and assistants, and to define and supervise the duties of such persons, are not inconsistent with the APA hearing procedure which is designed to guarantee due process to persons adversely affected by administrative action, such as adverse employment or personnel action.
Three arguments advanced by the University of Alaska converge here. The University contends that the statutory framework governing personnel matters for state agencies and public employees shows that the APA does not apply to University grievance proceedings; that grievance procedures are not procedures within AS 44.62.330; and that the APA applies only to adjudicative facts, not legislative facts. The University correctly observes that the State Personnel Act, AS 39.25.010-.220, governs personnel matters for all state employees in non-exempt service positions. AS 39.25.090. Neither those state employees in non-exempt service positions nor state employees covered by the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), AS 23.40.070-.260, are covered by the APA procedures when grievance proceedings are implicated. [3] Therefore, the University concludes that the the Legislature intended University employees to have only the same rights as state and other public employees in personnel matters... . University employees, however, are exempt from the State Personnel Act. AS 39.25.110(5). Thus, they do not receive the protection of grievance rules promulgated by the Director of Personnel under AS 39.25.150(16). Consequently, the exclusion of other state personnel from the APA does not, in our view, conclusively demonstrate that University personnel should be similarly excluded. The University relies on two statutes in support of its argument that intra-agency grievance proceedings are not the type of proceedings meant to be included within AS 44.62.330. First, the APA's definition of regulation excludes anything which relates only to the internal management of a state agency. AS 44.62.640(a)(3). Second, the State Personnel Act establishes procedures for amendment of personnel rules affecting non-exempt state employees. AS 39.25.140. Subsection (e) of this section states, [t]he rules adopted under this chapter relate to the internal management of state agencies and their adoption is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. While the State Personnel Act does not apply to University employees, the University argues, by analogy, that a blanket legislative intent exists not to have the APA apply to employment matters. We believe these arguments are fundamentally flawed. Both statutes refer to the application of the APA to an agency's rulemaking authority, i.e. the adoption of rules. Neither statute applies to an agency's adjudicatory functions. If adjudication and rulemaking were coextensive, these statutes would be controlling here. However, the two functions differ significantly. Rulemaking procedures are designed to ensure a fair and open adoption of policy; adjudication procedures are intended to ensure a fair application of policy to parties. [4] Thus, the fact that rulemaking procedures do not apply to internal personnel rules does not indicate that the protections of the APA's adjudicatory procedures are inapplicable to individual personnel decisions. The APA outlines the manner in which a hearing to determine whether a right, authority, license or privilege should be revoked, suspended, limited, or conditioned is initiated. AS 44.62.360. It similarly informs as to how a hearing to determine whether a right, authority, license or privilege should be granted, issued or renewed is initiated. AS 44.62.370. From these provisions, the University concludes that the APA only covers hearings which concern rights, authorities, licenses, and privileges, and that this does not include intra-agency personnel matters. In support of this argument, the University cites cases from other jurisdictions, holding that their respective administrative procedure acts are inapplicable to agency personnel decisions. [5] The University further contends that the APA adjudication procedures are inapplicable because McGrath is not grieving adjudicative facts, but rather legislative facts. As one court explained, agencies employ rulemaking procedures to resolve broad policy questions affecting many parties and turning on issues of `legislative fact.' Adjudicatory hearing procedures are used in individual cases where the outcome is dependent on the resolution of particular `adjudicative facts.' Independent Bankers Ass'n of Georgia v. Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 516 F.2d 1206, 1215 (D.C. Cir.1975). [6] The limitation of administrative adjudicatory hearings to adjudicatory facts is not made explicit in the APA. [7] Nevertheless, the distinction has been recognized. See Wickersham v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 680 P.2d 1135, 1143-47 (Alaska 1984) (refusing to apply the more relaxed public notice requirements of rulemaking procedures to adjudicatory procedures which involve individual rights). The structure of the APA, which establishes separate procedures for rulemaking and adjudications, suggests that Alaska has implicitly limited adjudicative functions to adjudicatory facts and rulemaking functions to legislative facts. Compare AS 44.62.010-.320 with AS 44.62.330-.630. See also AS 44.62.640(a)(3) (defining regulation). Further, the distinction is one which must be made in order to determine whether an administrative entity has made an adjudicatory decision for purposes of Appellate Rule 602(a)(2). See Kollodge v. State, 757 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Alaska 1988); Ballard v. Stich, 628 P.2d 918, 920 (Alaska 1981). Finally, the bifurcation of administrative functions along the legislative/adjudicative facts distinction is recognized in both federal and other state courts. [8] The formal grievance complaint filed by both McGrath and Mohr does not explicitly distinguish between legislative facts and administrative facts. The grievance complaint alleges [i]nappropriate placement of former community college faculty in rank... . Inappropriate denial of tenure for certain former community college faculty... . Discriminatory treatment by UA administration against grievants. Upon remand, it will be left to the parties and the grievance council to identify any claims of McGrath and Mohr involving legislative facts, as such issues are not controlled by the adjudicative provisions of the APA.