Opinion ID: 1202142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: pre-termination hearings and the apa

Text: We have consistently held that due process of law guaranteed by the United States and Alaska Constitutions requires a pre-termination hearing. Storrs v. Municipality of Anchorage, 721 P.2d 1146, 1149-50 (Alaska 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1032, 107 S.Ct. 878, 93 L.Ed.2d 832 (1987); Kenai Peninsula Borough Bd. of Educ. v. Brown, 691 P.2d 1034, 1037 (Alaska 1984); McMillan v. Anchorage Community Hosp., 646 P.2d 857, 864 (Alaska 1982); University of Alaska v. Chauvin, 521 P.2d 1234, 1238 (Alaska 1974); Nichols v. Eckert, 504 P.2d 1359, 1366 (Alaska 1973) (Erwin, J., concurring). While the University agrees that Odum was entitled to a pre-termination hearing, it contends that this hearing was not governed by the APA. The APA provides: The procedure of the state boards ... listed in this subsection ... shall be conducted under AS 44.62.330-44.62.630. This procedure, including, but not limited to, accusations and statements of issues, service, notice and time and place of hearing ... conduct of hearing ... shall be governed by this chapter... . AS 44.62.330(a) (emphasis added). The University presents no persuasive reason why the mandatory language of AS 44.62.330(a) should not apply to pre-termination proceedings. Alaska Statutes 44.62.330-.630 govern the procedures to be employed by the University except to the extent that [the University's] inclusion is inconsistent with the provisions of AS 14.40. [4] AS 44.62.330(a)(45); McGrath, 813 P.2d at 1372. As we noted in McGrath, [u]ltimately, if [d]efendant seeks to be exempted from the workings of the APA, it must seek such remedy from the [l]egislature, not this [c]ourt. Id. at 1375 (quoting Aden ). The University argues that the plain language of the APA should not be used to determine how it applies to intra-agency personnel decisions. Although the procedural protection of the APA may be applied to personnel actions, the APA was not drafted with these actions in mind. Accordingly, the University contends that applying the plain language of the APA to personnel actions is a very suspect enterprise. We disagree. Where the language of the statute is clear, [w]e see no reason to suspect that [it] does not mean exactly what it appears to mean. Kodiak Elec. Ass'n v. Delaval Turbine, Inc., 694 P.2d 150, 155 (Alaska 1984) (quoting Vest v. First Nat'l Bank of Fairbanks, 659 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Alaska 1983)). The University further argues that Odum was sufficiently protected by existing procedures. Although the pre-termination hearing afforded Odum did not incorporate all the procedural provisions of the APA, the University notes that she was entitled to grieve the outcome of this hearing. The grievance process includes a hearing which complies with the APA. Thus the University argues in the alternative that the pre-termination hearing already provided Odum, and the opportunity for a post-termination hearing which complies with the APA, taken together satisfy due process requirements and the APA. Again, we disagree. A post-termination hearing which complies with the requirements of the APA does not cure the failure of a pre-termination hearing to comply with the APA. The procedural protections the APA provides are most important before termination.