Opinion ID: 2169216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Were the Board's Decisions Beyond its Statutory Power?

Text: The presiding Justice reached several conclusions of law which suggest that the court was in agreement with Ethyl's allegation that the Board did not act regularly within the scope of its authority. We need not reproduce the court's statements which give rise to this suggestion; suffice it to say that the court was apparently of the opinion that the Board transgressed its statutory authority by (1) not conducting any hearings on Ethyl's applications, and (2) not compiling a record of its proceedings. It is perfectly clear to us, however, that the Board was statutorily obligated neither to hold any hearings nor to make a record of its proceedings. The statute which created the Board, 38 M.R.S.A. § 361, nowhere mandates that the Board must in every case hold a hearing before rendering a decision. Nor do we find a hearing requirement in either 36 M.R.S.A. § 1760(29, 30) or 36 M.R.S.A. §§ 655(1)(N), 656(1)(E), the substantive statutes which are involved in this case. Moreover, as we indicated in our discussion of 38 M.R.S.A. § 415, that provision rather plainly contemplates that not all orders or decisions of the Board from which appeals are taken will have been preceded by a hearing. Since no hearings were held, the Board's proceedings were not recorded and transcribed, and whatever evidentiary material the Board may have had before it was not compiled and preserved for possible judicial review. See 38 M.R.S.A. § 361, which would seem to require that the Board make a record in cases in which it conducts a hearing. At the time that Ethyl's applications were before the Board, however, there was no statutory requirement that the Board compile a record in a case in which it did not hold a hearing. [12] We conclude that there is no basis for Ethyl's allegation that the Board did not act regularly within the scope of its authority in denying Ethyl's applications. The Board's actions were entirely within its statutory authority. To the extent that the presiding Justice held to the contrary, he was in error.