Court Opinion

ID: 9633927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:08:03.877931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:45.595028
License: Public Domain

McCLINTOCK, Justice,
dissenting, with whom ROSE, Justice, joins.
I dissent from the affirmance of the state examiner’s decision to issue a bank charter and would remand the proceedings to him for further consideration of matters which I believe are relevant and material to exercise of an informed discretion. I would also direct that he make specific findings of fact as contrasted with the ultimate and to me vague findings set forth in his present decision. In doing this I expressly disclaim any intention to interfere with his statutory role as “sole judge as to whether or not a charter shall be granted,” § 13-44(c), W.S. 1957, C.1965,1975 Cum.Supp., or in any way to second-guess his determination of the facts, but I believe that this court is legally required to determine if he has complied with the mandate of the same statute that he “inquire into * * * the convenience and needs of the community to be served by the proposed corporation.” As I view the record, the examiner has arbitrarily and therefore improperly excluded from his inquiry “ ‘facts and circumstances relative [thereto] * * * which upon due consideration may be of persuasive weight in the exercise of its discretion,’ ” Lake De Smet Reservoir Company v. Kaufmann, 75 Wyo. 87, 292 P.2d 482, 486 (Wyo.1956) (quoting from 42 Am.Jur., Public Administrative Law, § 148, No.6), and he has failed to make proper findings as required by § 9-276.25(p), W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp.1 of the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. These omissions require rejection of his decision without denigration of his role as final adjudicator of the conflict.
My approach to this case is essentially the same as set forth at length in my dissent in Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, 527 P.2d 432, 440 et seq. (Wyo.1974), and I shall not engage in unnecessary repetition of those views. Basically, my view is that the state examiner, in his prosecution of the inquiry mandated by statute as a prerequisite to exercise of his discretionary judgment whether to issue a charter, has two courses of action: first, to make his own investigation, and, second, to hold an evi-dentiary hearing. In his independent inquiry he may seek information from any source so long as that information is made available to the contesting parties for their *52scrutiny, analysis and argument. The contested hearing must be fairly and impartially conducted as any other administrative proceeding, § 13-44(c), supra, § 9-276.19 et seq., W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp. This includes the right of any interested party to present all relevant and material evidence consistent with § 9-276.26, W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp. The examiner then considers all the information received from these two sources, weighs it, and reaches a judgment decision as to whether the charter shall issue. As required by § 9-276.28, W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp., he sets forth his findings of fact and on the basis of those findings arrives at a reasoned conclusion for the issuance or denial of the charter.
To me, then, the legal test is whether the examiner has pursued all reasonable lines of inquiry, subjected the results of his own investigations to probing and rebuttal by interested parties, and reached a decision based upon that evidence. If he has conducted all of the preliminaries in a fair and reasonable manner then he has complied with the law, and the interpretation he places upon or the conclusions he draws from those facts as found by him are not subject to reappraisement in the courts. In other words, we do not sit as trier of the facts, we do not determine the need and convenience, we do not interfere with his exercise of judgment.
The protestant’s claim that with the conclusion of the first evidentiary hearing the examiner was as a matter of law powerless to make any further independent investigation or to receive further evidence in a reopened hearing is as unacceptable to me as it is to the majority. The statutory duty imposed upon him is to “inquire.” I believe this to be a serious and important task, and if its performance is to have any validity it must be because the examiner will make all indicated inquiries and seek all facts that will have a bearing upon the merits of the application and the need of the community for the additional service. I can find nothing in the statute that indicates that the inquiry will be conducted only to that point when the examiner declares the evidence closed. I find no prohibition against his seeking further information upon his own initiative or reopening the hearing to receive further evidence. The limitations upon his inquiry advocated by the protestant might very well lead to an uninformed and therefore ill-advised decision, inimical to the public interest and need. It therefore necessarily follows, I think, that the duty to inquire continues until the examiner has sufficient facts upon which to reach an informed and advised decision upon the question.
My difference with the majority, then, lies with their apparent willingness to concede the right of the examiner to take additional evidence, whether through his own investigation or through testimony; but at the same time to approve what I consider to be the unreasonable strictures which he placed upon the further proceedings. If it appears that he has himself deliberately limited his inquiry into the facts, whether by improper limits on his own investigation or by imposing narrow limitations upon the evidence which may be considered at any hearing, be it the original or reopened hearing, in my opinion it follows that he has not carried out his statutory duty, has not sought fully to inform himself and thereby has led himself into “unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of facts and circumstances.” Marathon Oil Company v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation, 473 P.2d 575, 577 (Wyo.1970).2
I believe that the statutory duty to inquire, whether the instigation comes from the examiner himself or from an interested party, is not satisfied so long as material information is or reasonably may be considered as lacking at the time the decision is made. Such a view imposes no great burden upon the examiner and we should not consider such an inquiry subject to the same limitations placed upon presentation of ad*53ditional evidence in court trials. As recognized by the majority, the examiner is here exercising a special statutory obligation and our purpose should be to insure that the purpose of that obligation is fulfilled.
I do not mean to say that there is no limit at all upon the time and attention which the examiner must devote to this problem. It is not necessary that he reopen the hearing for every offer of evidence, however lacking in probative value it may be. Those are matters which he must weigh, subject to review of his action in the courts, bearing in mind that all investigations and proceedings must come to an end at some time so that without undue delay the examiner may decide for or against the issuance of the charter. But I say that he is not playing a game within strict time limits. The examiner had closed the original hearing on March 5. He expressed no concern about time when on April 11 he reopened his own investigation, or on August 16 when he gave notice of reopening the hearing on October l.3
While I do not agree with appellant that the refusal of the examiner under the circumstances of this case constituted a denial of due process I do think that it was arbitrary and amounts to an abuse of discretion. Counsel for appellant during that reopened hearing first sought on cross-examination of the senior examiner to ascertain whether he might have considered other questions, but was prevented from exploring this when the state examiner held that such questioning did not relate to data which was in the public file, that is, the senior examiner’s report of his supplemental examination.4 Counsel later tried to go into matters which appear to me to have been relevant and material on the question of the convenience and needs of the community to be served by an additional bank, explaining his reasons for the attempt and making offers of proof disclosing the materiality thereof. It does not appear that these offers were rejected because the examiner determined that the offered evidence was not material, or that it could not affect the answer to the question of need, but only because the examiner, at the time he reopened the hearing and without knowledge as to what evidence might be tendered on that question of need, had foreclosed any further inquiry except to ascertain why there was a discrepancy in opposing evidence as to out-of-town banking.5 I do not say that this evidence, even if offered at the original hearing, would have been sufficient to establish the lack of need for the bank, but I say that at whatever time it was offered, it was the legal duty of the examiner, in the exercise of his sole power to render judgment, to listen to, consider and weigh the evidence offered. I think the record is clear that the examiner was confining his inquiry as to the need for a charter to a point in time some six months previous. I simply cannot accept this as a proper discharge of his continuing duty to inquire. He is required to issue or deny a *54charter on conditions as they exist at the time of his decision.
One more thing leads me to conclude that the examiner has acted in an arbitrary manner. The majority properly point out that appellant does not object to the form of the findings but it clearly objects to three very material findings. I agree with appellant that the examiner’s finding that the prevailing view of Thermopolis citizens is that a second bank is “desirable” is nothing but an ultimate conclusion and would also point out that the question posed by the statute for the examiner to answer is not whether there is desire for another bank but whether such bank is needed and will serve the interests of the community. I am also inclined to agree with appellant that the finding that “a substantial volume of business and individual demand deposits are now leaving the community by way of deposit accounts placed with banks located in other communities” is an ultimate finding but more importantly would point out that there is no finding, ultimate or specific, that establishment of another bank in Thermopolis would result in a return of those deposits. The examiner’s finding that the proposed bank would give better banking service by providing needed competition and “by generating additional deposits thereby increasing the total volume of deposits and funds available for lending within the community” is not only an ultimate finding, perhaps an ultimate conclusion on the question to be answered by him, but is without support in any specific findings by the examiner. Since quite a number of the people queried maintain accounts in both the Thermopolis bank and an outside bank, I have a strong disinclination even to imply a finding that any material percentage of those people now maintaining accounts outside Thermopolis would use the new bank. This would be a material part of any findings by the examiner granting a new license. Without such a specific finding it is impossible for me to find any factual basis how the new bank would increase the total deposits in the community.
I would therefore remand the proceedings to the examiner with directions to hold another hearing, permitting introduction of all information pertinent to the need of the Thermopolis community for another bank and thereafter to enter specific findings of fact upon which the question of whether a new bank is needed in Thermopolis would then be answered.

. Section 13-44(c) directs that a public hearing, mandatorily required if five persons so request, or which may be held on the examiner’s own motion, shall be conducted “in accordance with the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.” (§§ 9-276.19 to 9-276.33, W.S.1957, 1975 Cum. Supp.)

. See further discussion and citation of authority in Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, supra, 527 P.2d at 440 (dissent).

. Later advanced to September 24. In the notice it is stated that “it is the determination of the State Examiner that no information or evidence will be considered other than that which will directly support or rebut the additional data gathered by the Senior Bank Examiner. The Applicant and the Protestant will each be given one and one-half (IV2) hours in which to challenge or support the findings under consideration.”

. Attempts of appellant’s counsel to inquire why certain areas were selected for inquiry while others were not were objected to and sustained. It was elicited that the senior examiner’s supplemental investigation had not considered current population, Thermopolis deposits in Worland banks, satisfaction with the bank in the community, income trends in the county compared to other counties, and had not checked information elicited by questionnaire as to the size of accounts against FDIC data to see if such account size was credible. There had been no reexamination of management. These exclusions appear to have resulted because of the limited nature of the task assigned by the examiner.

.Attempts of appellant to show that deposits in the established bank in Thermopolis had dropped between the first and second hearings were rejected for lack of pertinence to the reopened hearing. According to an offer of proof four banks in Wyoming had lost deposits during the period in question and appellant had suffered the greatest loss, a drop of some $800,000 in demand deposits and an overall drop of some $100,000.