Opinion ID: 1969424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Violation of Section 17A.17(3).

Text: Section 17A.17(3) provides: No individual who participates in the making of any proposed or final decision in a contested case shall have prosecuted or advocated in connection with that case, the specific controversy underlying that case, or another pending factually related contested case, or pending factually related controversy that may culminate in a contested case, involving the same parties. Nor shall any such individual be subject to the authority, direction or discretion of any person who has prosecuted or advocated in connection with that contested case, the specific controversy underlying that contested case, or a pending factually related contested case or controversy, involving the same parties. Iowa Code § 17A.17(3) (emphasis added). We are unable to sustain Ellen's challenge to the director's decision-making role based on the requirements of this statute. The issue with respect to section 17A.17(3) turns on the extent to which that statute disqualifies as a decision maker an individual who has advocated a position on a similar issue in a different proceeding. The individual who is the final decision maker at the agency level with regard to the present dispute was the director of DHS. The DHS has been organized by agency rule as required by Iowa Code section 17A.3(1). That rule, 441 Iowa Admin.Code 1.1, entrusts the director with the responsibility for all operations of the department and the formulation of department policy within the limits set forth in the statutes of the State of Iowa. Although this administrative rule confers upon the director the role of final decision maker in contested cases decided by the agency under chapter 17A, there is nothing in the record to suggest that he would advocate on behalf of the department in the civil litigation commenced by Ellen and her husband. Almost all agency heads are major policy makers in matters affecting their agencies, yet many are also empowered to act as final adjudicators on contested cases. For this system to be workable, the type of advocacy that works a disqualification upon an individual decision maker in a contested case proceeding, must, we believe, be a formal position on a similar issue, stated in person, in another contested proceeding. An informal solicitation of a favored result in another proceeding does not meet this test. In this regard, we have recognized that, when presentation of an issue is done by outside counsel, there is no impermissible combination of adjudicative and advocacy functions. Eaves v. Board of Medical Examiners, 467 N.W.2d 234, 236-37 (Iowa 1991); Wedergren v. Board of Directors, 307 N.W.2d 12, 18 (Iowa 1981). Ellen's argument that the interoffice memo that urged the director to review the proposed decision by the administrative law judge constituted improper advocacy is also without merit. In the present case, administrators in the agency subordinate to the director reviewed the proposed decision issued by the administrative law judge. Following that review, these persons recommended that the director review the decision on the agency's own motion as permitted by section 17A.15(3). In an interoffice memo recommending such action, the opinion was expressed that a finding of undetermined with respect to the challenged child abuse report would be more appropriate than the administrative law judge's finding of unfounded. We are convinced that it was within the contemplation of the legislature in permitting review of proposed contested case decisions on an agency's own motion, that the agency's determination of whether to undertake such review would in some instances turn on beliefs of affected agency officials concerning the merits of the proposed decision. This is particularly true as to issues directly affecting the mission and operation of the agency. The recommendation to the director in the present case is an example of that type of motivation. We do not find this to be a disqualifying factor. It is difficult to perceive how this could be avoided in light of the fact that agencies are to some extent policy making bodies.