Opinion ID: 1865465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: ex parte appearance

Text: Under SDCL 1-26-26, the adjudicatory members of an administrative agency cannot communicate ex parte with any person or party in a contested case. All parties must be allowed to participate. On October 5, 1983, counsel for the Water Rights Division appeared before the Board ex parte and gave a litigation report. Apparently, this litigation report procedure is an ongoing practice of the Board and constitutes a review of water rights litigation so as to keep the Board abreast of the law. Landers suggests the Board's decision is tainted. Specifically, the litigation report discussed the circuit court's ruling on the Board's failure to address each of Landers' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Landers had proposed 309 findings of fact and six conclusions of law. Landers insisted that the Board make a ruling on each proposed finding of fact and conclusion of law. The trial court sustained his position. When Landers' appeal was filed from the Board's final decision, Landers did not cite a single specific ruling of the Board as being improper after the Board had ruled on the 309 proposed findings of fact and six proposed conclusions of law. It does not appear that the issues discussed with the Board by Attorney Doyle are issues present in this appeal. Therefore, although we do not condone ex parte communications, the communications here cannot be prejudicial as they are impertinent to the issues of this appeal.