Opinion ID: 1158978
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: a majority vote of a statutory quorum is sufficient for apuc to transact business.

Text: Two of the five APUC commissioners did not participate in the final certification decision. [8] The nonparticipating commissioners dissented from APUC's prior order that held there would be no consideration of environmental externalities. One of the two did not participate in the evidentiary hearing leading to the final order. The other who abstained was an active participant in the hearing, asking questions almost to the end of the hearing. The Federation asserts that the certificate for HCCP should be declared void because the two commissioners who did not participate in the voting had a legal duty to vote on the issue. It argues that this duty arises from the fact that they are public officers of the State of Alaska. AS 39.52.960(21)(B) (a member of a commission is a public officer). As public officers, the commissioners take a constitutional oath of office, pledging to faithfully discharge their duties to the best of their ability. AS 42.05.081; Alaska Const. art. XII, § 5. Additionally, the Federation analogizes the duty of the commissioners to vote to the duty of judges to sit. Amidon v. State, 604 P.2d 575, 577 (Alaska 1979) ([A] judge has as great an obligation not to disqualify himself, when there is no occasion to do so, as he has to do so in the presence of valid reasons.); In re Ellis, 108 B.R. 262, 266 (D.Hawaii 1989) (a judge may not recuse herself simply because she does not want to hear the matter, because of the difficulty of the subject matter, or even because of calendar constraints). The Federation argues that as public officers, APUC Commissioners should be bound by the same duty as Judges, absent a formal excuse based on sound reasons. [9] It asserts that this will further public trust and promote governmental accountability by providing a record of official conduct. APUC, AIDEA, and GVEA respond that even if the court finds the nonparticipation of the two commissioners wrongful, the requested relief of setting aside a decision of a statutory quorum of the commission is inappropriate. [10] We agree. Alaska Statute 42.05.071 provides that [t]hree members of the commission constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, for the performance of a duty, or for the exercise of a power of the commission. [11] See Henry M. Robert, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised § 39 (Scott, Foresman & Co. 1990) [hereinafter Robert's Rules ] ([A] quorum in an assembly is the number of members entitled to vote who must be present in order that business can be legally transacted. The quorum refers to the number of such members present, not the number actually voting on a particular question.). [12] Furthermore, a majority of the quorum can act for the entire body. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Flotill Prods., Inc., 389 U.S. 179, 183, 88 S.Ct. 401, 404, 19 L.Ed.2d 398 (1967) (The almost universally accepted common-law rule is ... in the absence of a contrary statutory provision, a majority of a quorum constituted of a simple majority of a collective body is empowered to act for the body.); 1976 Formal Op.Att'y Gen. No. 14 ([W]hen only three members [of the Public Utilities Commission] are sitting a minimum of two members concurring is all that is required for the commission to act.); 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 196 (1962) ([U]nless a statute provides otherwise the generally accepted rule is that ... a majority of the quorum concurring is sufficient to take any particular action.). Where a statute is silent on the number of votes necessary for a body to take action, the common law states that a majority of the quorum is sufficient to transact the business of the body. [13] In this case, a statutory quorum was present. A majority of the required quorum voted. While it would have been preferable for all five commissioners to have voted, the nonparticipation of the two commissioners is not grounds for invalidating the decision of a majority of a statutory quorum. [14] As stated by APUC, The subject matter of AS 42.05.071 is not a commissioner's duty of participation. The subject matter of AS 42.05.071 is the specification of a minimum number of commissioners who must participate in a valid commission action on any matter before the commission. [15] Therefore, APUC's decision is not invalid on the ground asserted.