Opinion ID: 891654
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Absence of Commissioners King and Sloan from the Public Hearings Deprived ABCWUA of Procedural Due Process of Law

Text: {32} ABCWUA claims that it was deprived of its procedural due process right to a full and fair hearing because Commissioners King and Sloan, who voted in favor [of the Emergency FPPCAC,] did not personally attend many of the proceedings and did not listen to the testimony telephonically. Additionally, ABCWUA questions whether Commissioners King and Sloan even reviewed the record of the hearings they failed to attend prior to rendering their decision. {33} The record reflects that the PRC conducted public hearings on PNM's application for an Emergency FPPCAC on May 12, 15, 16, and 17, 2008. Commissioner King did not attend the hearings held on the afternoon of May 12, 2008, the morning of May 16, 2008, or the morning or afternoon of May 17, 2008. Commissioner Sloan did not attend the hearings held on the morning of May 12, 2008, or the morning or afternoon of May 17, 2008. Despite their absence, both Commissioner King and Sloan voted in favor of the Final Order awarding PNM an Emergency FPPCAC. {34} In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, neither due process nor the concept of a fair hearing requires that the actual taking of testimony be before the same officers as are to determine the matter involved. E.H. Schopler, Annotation, Administrative Decision by Officer Not Present When Evidence Was Taken, 18 A.L.R.2d 606, § 3 (1951). Rather, the majority of cases hold that in order to comply with due process it is only required that members not present when testimony is taken review the testimony before participating in the decision. Lewandoski v. Vermont State Colleges, 142 Vt. 446, 457 A.2d 1384, 1387 (1983); see also Schmidt v. Beeson Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 869 P.2d 1170, 1179 (Alaska 1994) (holding that an administrative officer's attendance at evidentiary hearings is not necessary so long as the officer reviews the transcript and documentary evidence prior to rendering a decision); Clairborne v. Coffeyville Mem'l Hosp., 212 Kan. 315, 510 P.2d 1200, 1202 (1973) ([A]n administrative decision is not invalid merely because, due to a change in personnel because of illness, death, resignation, transfers, or similar reasons, an officer who was not present when the evidence was taken, made or participated in the decision, provided he was considered and acts upon the evidence received in his absence.). {35} The burden is on ABCWUA to show that the Final Order is unreasonable or unlawful because Commissioners King and Sloan failed to review the evidentiary record prior to rendering a decision. See § 62-11-4. [M]ere allegation that the commissioners did not consider the entire record [is] insufficient. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. District Court, 163 Colo. 462, 431 P.2d 773, 777 (1967) (en banc); see also Nat'l Council on Comp. Ins., 107 N.M. at 286, 756 P.2d at 566 (The presumption . . . is that the [agency's] decision was reasonable.); Taub v. Pirnie, 3 N.Y.2d 188, 165 N.Y.S.2d 1, 144 N.E.2d 3, 5 (1957) ([I]n the absence of a `clear' revelation that the administrative body `made no independent appraisal and reached no independent conclusion', its decision will not be disturbed.). However, ABCWUA has failed to present this Court with any evidence to support its claim that Commissioners King and Sloan failed to review the evidentiary record prior to rendering a decision. Accordingly, we reject ABCWUA's due process claim. {36} Although we are not persuaded that a due process violation occurred, we nonetheless find the repeated absences of Commissioners King and Sloan, as well as Commissioner Ben R. Lujan, from the evidentiary hearings conducted by the PRC to be a cause for concern. The Commissioners of the PRC have a constitutional and statutory obligation to participate actively and fully in the proceedings before them. See N.M. Const. art. XI, § 1; § 8-8-4. Where the PRC does not delegate its authority to a hearing examiner, but, rather, conducts an evidentiary hearing before a full complement of Commissioners, unexplained absences should be the exception, rather than the rule.