Opinion ID: 2207217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Abuse-of-Discretion and Unreasonableness Claims.

Text: Rolfes alleges, and the district court found, that Citizens' Aide abused its discretion and acted unreasonably in conducting its investigation of Rolfes. See Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(g). In Churchill Truck Lines v. Transportation Regulation Board, 274 N.W.2d 295, 299-300 (Iowa 1979), we observed that [u]nreasonable has been said to mean action in the face of evidence as to which there is no room for difference of opinion among reasonable minds ... or not based on substantial evidence. We agree with Citizens' Aide that its actions were not shown to be unreasonable. If Rolfes had been denied statutory or constitutional rights to a hearing as he claims, Citizens' Aide could be said to have acted unreasonably. As discussed above, however, he was not denied such rights. Nor may the actions of Citizens' Aide be said to be unreasonable under the reasonable minds analysis of Churchill. Similarly, we do not agree that the Citizens' Aide investigation was an abuse of its discretion. While some of the investigation might have been undertaken by other entities, such as a prosecuting attorney or grand jury, there is nothing in the mandate of Citizens' Aide's authority which suggests that it lacks authority to conduct such investigations. Of course, any agency action, including this investigation, may still be reviewed under chapter 17A, as other agency action under the general constitutional and statutory requirements that agencies act `reasonably.'  Allegre, 349 N.W.2d at 116. We conclude that the district court erred in entering the protective order and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED.