Opinion ID: 1947634
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Policy Decision

Text: Although this was not a contested case, the RLA's action was nonetheless adjudicative, as opposed to legislative ( see Part I supra ) since it was based on particular information (adjudicative facts), and was directed at the rights of specific parties. See Schneider, supra at 326. This court held in Kopff, supra, that the term policy decision or guideline encompasses more than merely legislative-type actions; it may include adjudicative situations as well. [4] Kopff, supra at 1380-81. Thus the award of an exclusive right to submit a development proposal may constitute a policy decision, even though it was adjudicative in nature. Keeping in mind this interpretation of the statute, I conclude that the agency's award of exclusive rights was a policy decision relating to a license or permit, within the meaning of § 1-261(c)(1). Most of the specific agency activities listed in § 1-261(c)(1) involve discrete, local issues; they are seldom the subjects of general policy-making. Kopff, supra at 1381. See note 3 supra. If the term policy decision were limited to matters of broad, general policy, it would be difficult to imagine an adjudicatory action relating to a license or permit that would ever involve a policy decision. [5] Subsection (c) would be rendered meaningless by such an interpretation because the two categories policy decision and license or permit would be mutually exclusive. Moreover, this court held in Kopff, supra at 1380-81, that issuance of a liquor license was a policy decision within the meaning of the Act. It cannot be persuasively argued that awarding an exclusive right to submit a development proposal for a parcel of downtown property is less a policy decision than the award of a liquor license.