Opinion ID: 1127695
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The decision as an order under AS 18.80.135

Text: The State and Commission first argue that a decision issued before a public hearing is not an order under AS 18.80.135 [5] and is thus not subject to judicial review. The State and Commission cite Hotel & Restaurant Union Local 878 v. Alaska State Comm'n for Human Rights, 595 P.2d 653 (Alaska 1979), in support. Alaska Statute 18.80.135(a) expressly permits judicial review of an order of the commission.... Given the structure of the chapter, and the sequence apparently contemplated by AS 18.80.120, .130, and .135, it seems likely that § 135 deals only with review of orders issued by the Commission itself at the conclusion of hearings conducted by the Commission pursuant to § 130. Accordingly, § 135 is not concerned with review of some action by the executive director which is not an order as that term is used in Chapter 80. In Hotel and Restaurant Union Local 878, 595 P.2d at 654-55, we discussed the sequence of events contemplated by §§ 120 and 130. That discussion supports a conclusion that § 135 does not authorize review of a decision of the sort that closed Meyer's case. Assuming § 135 deals only with review of post-hearing Commission orders, it does not follow that § 135 affirmatively bars judicial review of the order closing Meyer's case. Moreover, all final administrative actions are presumed to be reviewable. This presumption controls unless it is rebutted by an affirmative indication of legislative intent that there be no reviewability. Johns v. CFEC, 699 P.2d 334, 339 (Alaska 1985); Sisters of Providence v. Department of Health & Soc. Servs., 648 P.2d 970, 976 (Alaska 1982); Alyeska Ski Corp. v. Holdsworth, 426 P.2d 1006, 1011 n. 16 (Alaska 1967). Section 135(a) does not express an affirmative legislative intention that file-closing decisions of the executive director or her staff be judicially unreviewable. We consequently apply the presumption of reviewability, and hold that such decisions are reviewable if they have the requisite finality. We also reject any suggestion that a decision's reviewability turns on whether it is labeled an order. As AS 44.62.560(e) confirms, the legislature imposed no such prerequisite for judicial review if agency action is unlawfully withheld or unreasonably withheld. [6] Rather, as discussed infra, the determinative question in deciding whether the decision is reviewable is whether it ended the case at the agency level and thus constituted final agency action. We also note that when Meyer last sought reconsideration of the executive director's file-closing order, the order of the Commissioner denying reconsideration informed Meyer that [a] person dissatisfied with a Commission Order dismissing the complaint may obtain judicial review by Superior Court in accordance with AS 44.62.560-44.62.570. It appears the Commissioner then considered that Meyer's order would be judicially reviewable.