Opinion ID: 6494576
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Degree of Prejudice Arising from Ex Parte Communications Between Government Officials and the Board Warrants Vacatur and Further Discovery

Text: Although ex parte communication is not condoned, the sole fact that ex parte communication occurred does not require vacatur of an agency’s decision. But, ex parte communication can rise to the level of prejudicial error, thus requiring vacatur of an agency’s decision. See Found. Int’l, Inc. v. E.T. Ige Constr., Inc., 102 Hawai'i 487, 503, 78 P.3d 23, 39 (2003) (considering whether ex parte communication would appear “to a reasonable onlooker ... [to be] prejudicial, providing the State with an advantage or depriving Foundation of the opportunity to argue its ease”); Town v. Land Use Comm’n, 55 Haw. 538, 549, 524 P.2d 84, 91-2 (1974) (holding prejudicial error was committed where appellant “was not given the opportunity to present argument or rebuttal evidence of his own to counter the ex parte arguments presented by petitioner”). To consider the due process ramifications of the Board’s ex parte communications and its policy of endorsing such communications, the factors considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in PATCO II are instructive. The court considered the following factors: the gravity of the ex parte communications; whether the contacts may have influenced the agency’s ultimate decision; whether the party making the improper contacts benefited from the agency’s ultimate decision; whether the contents of the communications were unknown to opposing parties, who therefore had no opportunity to respond; and whether vacation of the agency’s decision and remand for new proceedings would serve a useful purpose. PATCO II, 685 F.2d at 564; see also Duffy v. Berwick, 82 A.3d 148, 156 (Me. 2013); Idaho Historic Pres. Council v. City Council of Boise, 134 Idaho 651, 8 P.3d 646, 652 (2000). The court explained that these factors are considered to determine whether “the agen-ay’s decisionmaking process was irrevocably tainted so as to make the ultimate judgment of the agency unfair, either to an innocent party or to the public interest that the agency was obliged to protect.” PATCO II, 685 F.2d at 564. But, because “the principal concerns of the court are the integrity of the process and the fairness of the result,” these factors should not be mechanically applied. Id. at 565. Rather, a determination whether ex parte communications void an agency decision “must of necessity be an exercise of equitable discretion.” Id. Sussel is instructive as to the discretion applied in reviewing the PATCO II factors in this case. The Sussel court explained that there is “no reason why an administrative adjudicator should be allowed to sit with impunity in a case where the circumstances fairly give rise to an appearance of impropriety and reasonably cast suspicion on his impartiality” and determined that a “showing of actual bias” was not necessary to disqualify an administrative adjudicator. Sussel, 71 Haw. at 110, 784 P.2d at 871. Thus, in considering the PATCO II factors, the court should consider whether the facts demonstrate “an appearance of impropriety,” rather than whether a showing of “actual bias” exists. The first factor in considering the impact of the ex parte communications is the gravity of the communications. Though the Board’s written orders condone the ex parte communications that occurred between the Board Chairman, senior senator’s office, and the Governor’s office by defining them as discussions relating to procedural matters, documentary evidence of undisclosed ex parte communications with the Chairman produced by Kilakila evince communications of a substantive nature supporting the need to grant the permit in a timely manner to avoid loss of funding for the ATST project. The refusal of the Board to produce any documentary evidence of its ex parte communications during its deliberations makes unknown whether there are additional ex parte communications with the Board or with the second hearing officer. Nonetheless, as noted supra, based on the instant record, the gravity of the known undisclosed ex parte communications is significant. As to the second factor, “whether the contacts may have influenced the agency’s ultimate decision,” the timing of the ex parte communications suggests that the communications may have affected the Board’s decision. PATCO II, 685 F.2d at 565. Ex parte communications occurring in the “crucial period between the close of oral argument ... and the adoption of the [order]” particularly calls into question the extent to which the adjudicating official considered the ex parte communications in making its decision. Home Box Office, Inc. v. Fed. Comm. Comm’n, 567 F.2d 9, 53 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Here, the impermissible ex parte communications occurred during the deliberations period of the first hearing officer and prior to the Board’s grant of the 2012 permit. The record as it stands shows that pressure from undisclosed ex parte communications was so severe it compelled Jacobson to issue a public disavowal of his initial report and recommendation. Clearly, undisclosed ex parte communications also occurred with the Chairman during the deliberation period that followed the contested case hearing. However, in light of the incomplete record, the extent of the effect of additional ex parte communications on the Board cannot be ascertained. PATCO II’s third factor is whether the party making the improper contacts benefited from the agency’s ultimate decision. PATCO II, 685 F.2d at 565. Here, the senior senator’s and Governor’s staff contacted the Chairman on UHIfA’s behalf from January to March 2012. The Board subsequently granted the 2012 permit in favor of UHIfA in November 2012. In considering the fourth factor, whether the contents of the ex parte communications were known to the opposing party, and whether the opposing party had an opportunity to respond to the ex parte communications, significant questions of prejudice arise. PATCO II, 685 F.2d at 565. The ability of an opposing party to respond to arguments is a necessary component to a fair hearing. The ICA has explained that undisclosed communications from parties and non-parties “de-privets] the absent party of the right to respond and be heard.” Moran, 97 Hawai'i at 373, 37 P.3d at 622 (quoting J. Shaman, et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics at 159-60 (3d Ed. 2000)). Further, undisclosed meetings or communication are inconsistent ‘“with the ideal of reasoned decisionmaking on the merits which undergirds all of our administrative law.’” Home Box Office. 567 F.2d at 56. Jacobson’s disclosure and Kilakila’s requests for disclosure have produced evidence that the Board adopted a policy wherein Kilakila was not informed of ex parte meetings and communications between decision-makers and government officials appearing to act in concert with UHIfA to achieve timely approval of the conservation district use application for construction of the ATST. Here, the Board’s denial of Kilakila’s discovery requests precluded Kilakila from responding to any undisclosed statements made to the Chairman by the staff of the Governor or senior senator on UHIfA’s behalf. The Board did so both by refusing to produce the documents and by rendering a decision without releasing any documentation of the undisclosed communications. In so doing, not only did the Board shield itself from scrutiny by Kilakila of its undisclosed ex parte communications, the Board prevented appellate review of its actions depicted in any withheld documents. As a result, this court cannot know the extent of the ex parte communications’ effect on the Board’s decision. PATCO II’s fifth factor is whether vacatur and remand would serve a useful purpose. PATCO II, 685 F.2d at 565. Courts faced with a similar lack of a record have required evidentiary hearings to be held and additional discovery to be provided. For example, prior to its decision in PATCO II. the D.C. Circuit was faced with an incomplete record indicating that ex parte communications occurred. Prof'l Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. Fed. Labor Rels. Auth., 672 F.2d 109 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (hereinafter PATCO I). The court’s review of the record left it “with a number of important but unanswered questions” and it was “not satisfied that the factual picture [the parties] assemble is yet complete.” Id. at 112-13. Of additional concern to the court was that the parties detrimentally affected by the ex parte communication had not had “any opportunity to explore the effect that the newly discovered events may have had on [the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s] decision.” Id. at 113. The court thus ordered an evidentiary hearing “to determine the nature, extent, source, and effect of any and all ex parte contacts and other approaches that may have been made to any member or members of the [Federal Labor Relations Authority] while the appeal ... was pending before them[.]” Id. at 110. The court explained the evidentiary hearing was necessary due to the grave significance of impermissible ex parte communication on a proceeding: This shadow on the integrity of the administrative process cannot be summarily dismissed. Consequently, we are today initiating procedures to ensure a thorough probe. [[Image here]] We regard the portents of improper communications with an administrative deci-sionmaker as grave; particularly in an adjudicatory proceeding in which the stakes were so high and on which national attention was focused with much concern, the suggestion of behind-the-scenes machinations is intolerable. Id. at 111-113. As evidenced by the initial appeal in this ease establishing Kilakila’s right to a contested case hearing, placement of the ATST on Haleakalá is a protracted issue in which stakes are high. Because the Board did not consider undisclosed ex parte communications by non-parties on “procedural” matters improper, such communications may have been ongoing following the appointment of the second hearing officer and during the deliberation period of the Board. The behind-the-scenes communications subsequent to the contested case hearing but before the decision warrant vacatur of the CDUP and completion of the discovery begun by Kilakila to determine the extent and nature of the communications.