Opinion ID: 1969662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Director's Designee.

Text: Soo Line argues that the DOT unconstitutionally delegated its decision-making responsibility. The City asserts that Soo Line did not preserve error on this issue. Additionally, the City argues that the designation was not unconstitutional. In contested cases our review is limited to those questions considered by the administrative agency. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Iowa Transp. Regulation Bd., 322 N.W.2d 273, 276 (Iowa 1982). Constitutional issues must be raised at the agency level to be preserved for judicial review. Fisher v. Board of Optometry Examiners, 478 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Iowa 1991); Office of Consumer Advocate v. Iowa State Commerce Comm'n, 465 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Iowa 1991). This is true despite the agency's lack of authority to decide constitutional questions. Office of Consumer Advocate, 465 N.W.2d at 283; Shell Oil Co. v. Bair, 417 N.W.2d 425, 430 (Iowa 1987). Therefore, we look to the record before the agency to see if Soo Line raised this constitutional issue there. In the cover letter for its appeal to the DOT, Soo Line asked that the director, not a designee, make the agency decision. In its appeal to the director, Soo Line raised the issue as follows: Must the Director of Transportation, rather than a designee, decide this appeal? Explain. In his decision on appeal, the designee simply noted Soo Line's request and the director's subsequent appointment of a designee. In its petition for judicial review of agency action, Soo Line argued that the director had improperly, illegally, and unconstitutionally delegated agency decision-making authority to the director's designee. The district court ruled that there was no basis for Soo Line's contention that the director erroneously delegated his authority. The City argues that Soo Line did not raise the constitutional issue of improper delegation before the agency. We agree. Although Soo Line questioned whether the director, not the director's designee, should make the final agency decision, it did not alert the agency to the constitutional issue it seeks to raise here. Therefore, this issue was not preserved for our review.