Opinion ID: 7281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Irrevocably Closed Minds

Text: 38 We also conclude that the Pilots' implicit allegation that the Ports' minds were irrevocably closed to the proposed pilotage rates by having prejudged the facts of the rate-making dispute prior to adjudicating that same dispute at their own proceedings is without merit. The contention that a tribunal is unconstitutionally biased because it has prejudged the facts of a particular dispute carries a more difficult burden of persuasion than a claim based on actual bias. 46 Allegations of bias based on the prejudgment of the facts or outcome of a dispute generally stem from the fact that an administrative body or hearing officer has dual roles of investigating and adjudicating disputes and complaints. In situations in which this type of bias is raised, the honesty and integrity of those serving as adjudicators is presumed. 47 In addition, there is a presumption that those making decisions affecting the public are doing so in the public interest. 48 Thus, a party challenging this presumption of honesty must convince the court that under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individuals poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented. 49 39 Although courts have observed that an administrative body that has prejudged the facts or the outcome of a dispute cannot render a decision that comports with due process, 50 we have held that we will not infer bias when no evidence is presented to indicate that a hearing officer's mind was irrevocably closed. 51 Here, we are satisfied that, even in light of the fact that the Ports attended the Commission hearing, presumably in firm opposition to the pilotage rate increase, there still is nothing in the summary judgment record of this case to suggest that, at the subsequent port proceedings, the Ports' minds were irrevocably closed regarding the rate increase. 40 Indeed, the record supports just the opposite determination, that the Ports' minds were not irrevocably closed. The summary judgment evidence reflects that the Ports permitted the Pilots to present testimony and evidence in support of their proposal, including an opportunity for questions and answers. In addition, rather than veto the rate increase on the spot--as one might expect from those whose minds are irrevocably closed--the Ports assigned to board members or members of the ports' staffs the task of studying the proposed rate increase, and instructed these individuals and committees to address the issues relating to the increase and to report back at the next meeting. On at least one occasion a representative of the Pilots met separately with a representative of the Ports to discuss the Pilots' proposal. Clearly, this evidence supports our determination that there is no credible suggestion that the Ports had irreversibly prejudged the facts to the extent that their minds were permanently closed to the issue of the rate increase or that the Ports' administrative procedures posed an unacceptable risk of bias. 52 III