Opinion ID: 1666128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Procedural Due Process Challenge Arising from the Conduct of the Director.

Text: A. Introduction. Botsko also challenges the role of Director Morrell in this proceeding as violating procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution. [3] He launches a two-pronged attack, objecting to the presence of Director Morrell during the commission's deliberations. The first challenge goes to Morrell's role in the investigation of Nabb's claim, specifically when she participated in the initial finding of probable cause. The second challenge goes to Morrell's alleged role as an advocate for Nabb at the administrative hearing and in presenting a joint brief to this court. Nabb counters Botsko's arguments by asserting that a paralegal, and not Morrell personally, investigated the case and made a recommendation to Morrell after completing her investigation. She further asserts there was no evidence that Morrell prosecuted the case, noting that under the ordinance, the duties and power of the director do not include prosecution. Davenport Mun.Code § 2.58.070. She additionally asserts that Botsko failed to show actual bias sufficient to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity by persons who serve as adjudicators. Nabb argues the undisputed evidence shows that Morrell had no vote in the deliberative process, did not tell anyone how to vote, and did not try to influence anyone's vote. Nabb finally argues that Morrell participated in the closed sessions solely to advise the commissioners if they had any questions, to talk with them about procedures, and to record their votes. B. Analytic Framework for Due Process Claims in Administrative Proceedings. A party in an administrative proceeding is entitled to procedural due process. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842, 852 (1971). The question is generally not whether a party is entitled to due process, but rather what process is due in any particular proceeding. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 (1972). Due process always involves, however, a constitutional floor of a `fair trial in a fair tribunal.' Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1464, 43 L.Ed.2d 712, 723 (1975) (quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942, 946 (1955)). The key United States Supreme Court case regarding procedural due process in the context of the conflicting roles of agency personnel is Withrow v. Larkin . In Withrow, the United States Supreme Court held that procedural due process is not denied where investigative and adjudicative functions were both housed within a medical examination agency. Withrow, 421 U.S. at 47-55, 95 S.Ct. at 1464-68, 43 L.Ed.2d at 723-28. The Court generally embraced the notion that due process required basic fairness in an administrative proceeding and noted that in some situations, such as those involving pecuniary interest or demonstrated personal bias, experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. Id. at 47, 95 S.Ct. at 1464, 43 L.Ed.2d at 723. In contrast to these settings, however, the Court stated that a combination of investigative and adjudicative functions faces a much more difficult burden of persuasion. Id. When a party challenges on procedural due process grounds the combination of investigative and adjudicative processes within an agency, [i]t must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators; and it must convince 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. Id. at 47, 95 S.Ct. at 1464, 43 L.Ed.2d at 723-24. The Court furthered observed in Withrow that the variety of administrative mechanisms in the country will not yield any single organizing principle for procedural due process analysis. Id. at 51, 95 S.Ct. at 1466-67, 43 L.Ed.2d at 726. Nonetheless, several of the principles articulated in Withrow have appeared consistently in the case law and appear to have general application. First, the mere fact that investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicative functions are combined within one agency does not give rise to a due process violation. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 45 Cal.4th 731, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 610, 199 P.3d 1142, 1146 (2009); Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Stamps, 898 So.2d 664, 678 (Miss.2005); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 847 (Tenn.2008). Such combinations inhere in the very nature of the administrative process before an agency. Dep't of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 585, 145 P.3d 462, 464 (2006); State ex rel. Martin-Erb v. Mo. Comm'n on Human Rights, 77 S.W.3d 600, 610 (Mo.2002). In addition, the mere fact that an agency adjudicator has a supervisory role over agency actors involved in the investigatory or prosecutorial functions of the agency does not establish a procedural due process claim. R.A. Holman & Co. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 366 F.2d 446, 452-53 (2d Cir.1966). Second, consistent with Withrow, there is a consensus in the case law that even where investigative and adjudicative functions are combined in a single individual or group of individuals, there is no due process violation based solely upon the overlapping investigatory and adjudicatory roles of agency actors. For instance, the mere knowledge or participation of an adjudicatory fact finder in a preliminary investigation does not taint the proceedings when there is a later evidentiary hearing before the agency on the merits of the case. Fisher v. Iowa Bd. of Optometry Exam'rs, 510 N.W.2d 873, 877 (Iowa 1994); Wedergren v. Bd. of Dirs., 307 N.W.2d 12, 17 (Iowa 1981). As noted by one appellate court, state administrators are assumed to be professionals capable of distinguishing between investigations to determine if a threshold requirement for commencing the action has been met and the actual factual adjudication of those actions. Colquitt v. Rich Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 227, 298 Ill.App.3d 856, 232 Ill.Dec. 924, 699 N.E.2d 1109, 1114 (1998); see also Fisher, 510 N.W.2d at 877. In order to prove a procedural due process violation in the context of a combination of investigative and adjudicative roles, even in a single individual, the challenging party must bear the difficult burden of persuasion to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators. Fisher, 510 N.W.2d at 877, see also Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 895 F.Supp. 375, 387 (D.Mass. 1995); Hartwig v. Bd. of Nursing, 448 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa 1989). A more serious problem, however, is posed where the same person within an agency performs both prosecutorial and adjudicative roles. As noted by Michael Asimow, a leading authority on administrative law, the primary purpose of separating prosecutorial from adjudicative functions is to screen the decisionmaker from those who have a will to wina psychological commitment to achieving a particular result because of involvement on the agency's team. Michael Asimow, When the Curtain Falls: Separation of Functions in the Federal Administrative Agencies, 81 Colum. L.Rev. 759, 773 (1981) [hereinafter Asimow]. Richard J. Pierce, Jr. in his leading administrative law treatise also observed, It is difficult for anyone who has worked long and hard to prove a proposition ... to make the kind of dramatic change in psychological perspective necessary to assess that proposition objectively.... 2 Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative Law Treatise § 9.9, at 681 (4th 2002). The distinction between combining prosecutorial rather than investigatory roles with adjudication in a single individual has been recognized by courts. The court in Howitt v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.4th 1575, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 196 (1992) observed: A different issue is presented, however, where advocacy and decision-making roles are combined. By definition, an advocate is a partisan for a particular client or point of view. The role is inconsistent with true objectivity, a constitutionally necessary characteristic of an adjudicator. Howitt, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d at 202. Many of these cases find that such a combination poses so great a risk that due process has been violated without a showing of actual prejudice. See, e.g., Gonzales v. McEuen, 435 F.Supp. 460, 465 (D.C.Cal.1977); Dorr v. Wyo. Bd. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 21 P.3d 735, 745 (Wyo.2001). The ordinary requirement of actual bias or prejudice in separation of functions challenges does not apply because the risk of impartiality is thought to be too great when an advocate with the will to win also has a role in the adjudication of the dispute. Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal.App.4th 81, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 234, 246 (2003). Other cases have finessed the issue of whether the appearance of impropriety alone is sufficient to result in a due process violation by finding the presence of actual prejudice. See, e.g., Allen v. La. State Bd. of Dentistry, 543 So.2d 908, 915 n. 15 (La.1989). At least one case, however, stands for the proposition that while an attorney who prosecuted charges and then accompanied a board to deliberate may have acted imprudently, the fact that the counsel cast no vote and the apparent absence of any substantial prejudice did not warrant reversal of the adjudication. Weissman v. Bd. of Educ., 190 Colo. 414, 547 P.2d 1267, 1276 (1976). The Weissman court advised in future cases that counsel who plays a role as an advocate should not take part in the deliberations of the board. Id. While some cases may allow one person to combine prosecutorial and adjudicative roles, the context is generally one where swift decisionmaking is a necessity and the interests at stake are minimal. See generally Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975) (allowing principal to mete out student discipline). The contours of procedural due process in an administrative proceeding, involving the combination of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, were explored in depth in Nightlife. In Nightlife, the owner of an adult cabaret appealed a denial of a regulatory permit by city officials. Nightlife, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d at 237-38. An assistant city attorney who participated in the city's decision to deny the permit then appeared at the appeal hearing, where the hearing officer stated that the assistant city attorney would advise him regarding the appeal. Id. at 238. The court in Nightlife ruled that the cabaret's due process rights were violated by the dual roles of the assistant city attorney. Id. at 239. After stating the broad general principles of procedural due process, the Nightlife court emphasized that due process in the administrative setting required the appearance of fairness and the absence of even a probability of outside influence on the adjudication. Id. at 242-43. In support of its contention that the appearance of fairness implicates due process concerns, the court cited provisions of the California Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Administrative Procedure Act, and other state administrative procedure acts that provide for the separation of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions. Id. at 244-45. The Nightlife court recognized that the combination of investigative and adjudicative functions, standing alone, did not generally create a due process violation in the absence of some showing of bias. Id. at 243. The court observed, however, that the same cannot be so readily said when prosecutorial and adjudicative functions are too closely combined. Id. at 243-44. In analyzing the combination of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, the Nightlife court stated, [T]o permit an advocate for one party to act as the legal advisor for the decision-maker creates a substantial risk that the advice given to the decision-maker will be skewed, particularly when the prosecutor serves as the decisionmaker's advisor in the same or a related proceeding. Id. at 245. As a result, the court concluded that it was improper for an attorney to serve as a partisan advocate and as a legal advisor to the neutral decision-maker. Id. at 248. Even the Nightlife court noted, however, that the mere asking of questions by an agency lawyer in an administrative hearing did not amount to partisan activity. Id. at 247. For instance, in 12319 Corp. v. Business License Commission, 137 Cal.App.3d 54, 186 Cal.Rptr. 726, 731 (1982), a government lawyer in an administrative hearing asked whether a witness was familiar with a signature and whether the witness could recognize the signature on a document. The court held that the questioning was not inconsistent with the role of a neutral advisor taking action to ensure that the evidence was properly before the commission and did not amount to adoption of the prosecutorial role. 12319 Corp., 186 Cal. Rptr. at 731. Determining whether an individual's actions amount to neutral participation or are prosecutorial, for due process purposes, is not always clear. Asimow, 81 Colum. L.Rev. at 776-77. As noted by Asimow, while it is possible to take the position that all participation of any kind in prosecution raises the problem, a strict approach is oversimplified and could be quite costly. Id. at 776. Agency technical staff is a limited and valuable resource that should be available as a source of expertise to agency decisionmakers. Id. As a result, Asimow questions whether the mere giving of technical advice to an adversary is sufficient participation in the prosecution to preclude an individual from later participation in the adjudication as an advisor. Id. ; see also Dittus v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 502 N.W.2d 100, 103-04 (N.D. 1993) (offering of foundational exhibits in proceeding insufficient basis to preclude agency official from participating in adjudication). Additionally, the mere approval of the form of a draft order by a staffer who was an advocate may not be sufficient to trigger a procedural due process violation. Richview Nursing Home v. Minn. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 354 N.W.2d 445, 460 (Minn. Ct.App.1984). A number of cases also hold that, like a judge in a judicial proceeding, neutral staff members of an agency may ask questions in an adjudicative proceeding in order to clarify the record without being regarded as a partisan advocate and violating due process if they subsequently participate in adjudicatory functions. 12319 Corp., 186 Cal.Rptr. at 731. In addition, the mere filing of a complaint by an executive director is considered ministerial in nature and does not give rise to a due process issue in the event the executive director participates in the final agency adjudication. Eaves v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 467 N.W.2d 234, 236-37 (Iowa 1991); see also Finer Foods Sales Co. v. Block, 228 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 708 F.2d 774, 779-80 (C.A.D.C.1983). Finally, the involvement of agency staff in judicial proceedings after the agency has reached a final decision is not generally regarded as raising procedural due process problems. In this setting, the advocate is defending a final agency action that is unlikely to produce the same psychological commitment as when an agency staffer seeks to persuade the agency on the merits. Asimow, 81 Colum. L.Rev. at 777; Ceres Marine Terminal, Inc. v. Md. Port Admin., No. 94-01, 1999 WL 287321,  (F.M.C. April 16, 1999) (finding participation in briefing before appellate court defending agency action not prosecution that engenders a will to win sufficient to raise procedural due process infirmity when combined with other agency roles). On the other hand, as in Nightlife, when a staff member becomes involved in the plaintiffs' litigation strategy or assumes a personal commitment to a particular result, he or she becomes an adversary with the will to win. Asimow, 81 Colum. L.Rev. at 778. In Withrow terminology, when an agency staffer functions as an advocate, experience teaches that the probability of actual bias is too high to allow the staffer to also participate in the adjudicative process. See, e.g., Gonzales, 435 F.Supp. at 464-65 (finding procedural due process violation without showing of bias where school district attorneys acted as prosecutors and then as legal advisors to the board in school expulsion matter); Schmidt v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Aitkin, 349 N.W.2d 563, 568 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (finding procedural due process violation where counsel presented case for terminating teacher, advised board chairman on legal rulings, and drafted and presented the findings of fact and conclusions of law). As is often the case with respect to procedural due process, the question is one of line-drawing and balancing. See generally Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). C. Application. We reject Botsko's claim that Morrell's mere participation in the probable cause finding and the deliberations of the commission violates due process. The fact that Morrell may have made an initial finding of probable cause in this matter does not necessarily give rise to a due process violation if she later participates as an advisor in the commission's deliberations. Under Withrow, a party who contends that the participation of an agency staff member in investigatory and adjudicatory functions violated due process must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity. Withrow, 421 U.S. at 47, 95 S.Ct. at 1464, 43 L.Ed.2d at 723-24. The fact that Morrell had some involvement in the initial finding of probable cause and later participated in the deliberations is not sufficient to give rise to a due process violation in the absence of a demonstration of actual bias. Botsko argues, however, that Morrell did not simply participate in the initial finding of probable cause and the agency's later deliberations. Botsko claims that Morrell was an advocate for Nabb at the administrative hearing. Botsko notes that Morrell introduced several exhibits into the record for jurisdictional purposes. She was also seated at counsel table with Nabb's attorney. Botsko further notes that during the evidentiary presentation, Morrell and Nabb's counsel engaged in numerous off-the-record consultations. Finally, Botsko asserts that Morrell joined Nabb's counsel in its brief to this court. The commission and the district court, however, found that Morrell did not improperly act as an advocate in the proceedings. First, we are not troubled by the fact that Morrell entered several exhibits into the record for jurisdictional purposes. These actions related to uncontested matters that simply set the stage for the proceeding. These activities are the kind of marginal participation in the administrative process that do not give rise to the will to win that would unduly tilt the playing field when prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions are combined. Dittus, 502 N.W.2d at 103-04. Second, we also are not concerned about Morrell's participation in the litigation after the agency made its final determination. Such post-decision defense of agency action does not inject unacceptable risks of bias into the agency determination. Ceres, No. 94-01, 1999 WL 287321 at -. Of more concern is the fact that Morrell sat at counsel table for the plaintiff and participated in off-the-record conferences with Nabb's private counsel at the close of testimony. While it is true that Morrell did not ask any questions directly of any witness, on at least one occasion, after discussions between Morrell and counsel for Nabb, counsel for Nabb asked additional questions, which led to Botsko's impeachment. Morrell did not engage in similar private conferences with counsel for Botsko. While the record does not indicate the nature of these conversations, the ALJ apparently believed that Morrell was participating in the prosecution of the case, observing at the close of evidence that the burden of proof was on Ms. Greve [Nabb's attorney] or Ms. Morrell. If Morrell were a neutral observer, she would have no burden of proof. Where it is undisputed that the director of an agency sits at counsel table with a complainant, confers with that counsel at the close of the testimony of witnesses, and does not object when the hearing officer suggests that she, along with counsel for the complainant, bears the burden of proof, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the director was engaged in advocacy on behalf of the complainant. That advocacy is of a sufficient nature to preclude her later participation in the adjudicatory process in the case under the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Nightlife, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d at 248. The combination of advocacy and adjudicative functions has the appearance of fundamental unfairness in the administrative process. Id. at 242-43. Further, because of the risk of injecting bias in the adjudicatory process, Botsko is not required to show actual prejudice. Id. The commission, nevertheless, argues that Morrell did not perform as an advocate in the adjudicative stage of the proceeding. The commission points out that Morrell did nothing more than answer questions of the commissioners in its closed sessions. Further, affidavits from various commission members state that they made their findings independently. These arguments and declarations, however, provide this court with little comfort. An advocate can accomplish much by simply answering questions. Indeed, that is what happens in every case where there are oral arguments before this court, where a skilled advocate will answer the court's questions in terms as objective as possible as a means of convincing the court to adopt a client's position. We cannot accept the contention that Morrell, after assisting Nabb as a second-chair advocate, may retreat into the closed sessions of the agency to answer questions. D. Remedy. In light of the due process violation, the decision of the commission must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. The commission may avoid the due process violation by submitting the case, on the record previously developed, to a disinterested quorum of current commission members. See In the Matter of Broome County Dep't of Pub. Transp. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 220 A.D.2d 861, 632 N.Y.S.2d 266, 267 (1995) (calling for remand for further proceedings before an impartial arbitrator in light of due process violation). In addition, the commission may explore the possibility under any applicable cooperation agreement of presenting the case before an untainted body of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. See Iowa Code § 216.19(2), (3) (2009).