Opinion ID: 1843176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the Decision-Making Body Properly Constituted?

Text: The Bergers challenged the participation of Kautz to serve on the review committee. At the time of the review committee hearing, Kautz was a district 6 engineer for the IDOT. His area of coverage included the county in which the Bergers' property was located. Due to his position as district engineer, he had some personal knowledge of the Highway 1 project. The Bergers claim that Kautz's participation on the review committee was improper under Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)( e ). If the agency action was [t]he product of decision making undertaken by persons who were improperly constituted as a decision-making body, were motivated by an improper purpose, or were subject to disqualification, the Bergers may be entitled to relief. Iowa Code § 17A.19( e ). The district court concluded the Bergers failed to preserve error on this issue before the agency. We agree. Although Bergers' counsel queried Kautz regarding his knowledge of the Highway 1 project at various points during the review committee hearing, Bergers' counsel never moved to recuse Kautz from the proceedings. The Bergers were required to raise the issue of the alleged bias in the agency proceeding, so it could have been addressed by the review committee. See Council Bluffs Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. City of Council Bluffs, 412 N.W.2d 171, 173 (Iowa 1987). The failure to raise the issue before the agency waives this error on appeal. See Tussing v. George A. Hormel & Co., 417 N.W.2d 457, 458 (Iowa 1988).