Opinion ID: 1922352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Tax Appeals Commission follow the proper procedure in passing upon appellant's petition?

Text: A. Number of members required to attend the hearing. Appellant argues that the fact that only one of the three members of the Tax Appeals Commission who signed the commission's decision and order was present at the hearing constitutes error. The procedure to be followed by the commission is statutory. Sec. 73.01 (4) (b), Stats., provides: Any matter required to be heard by the commission may be heard by any member of the commission and reported to the full commission for determination . . . . (Emphasis added.) In this case one member of the commission, Chairman C. L. Finch, was present at the hearing, and the entire commission signed the decision and order. That is all the statute requires. B. The fifteen-month delay. The petition to quash the subpoena was heard by the commission in February, 1969. Its decision on the petition was not issued until May, 1970. No explanation appears for this delay, although it does appear that the briefs and reply letters were not completely submitted until October 31, 1969. One of the purposes of establishing administrative tribunals is to expedite matters which come before them. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that the delay here appears unreasonable. Absent a mandatory statutory requirement, however, delay in issuing a decision does not constitute reversible error. [13] By the Court. Judgment affirmed.