Court Opinion

ID: 9623200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:29:31.230003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:26.615296
License: Public Domain

HOLOHAN, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority of the court acknowledge that judicial is not the same as quasi-judicial, citing Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, 57 Ariz. 239, 112 P.2d 870 (1941), yet the majority then proceed to conclude that an administrative agency can act judicially. No authority for such a position is cited. I had always been under the impression that the judicial power was vested in the courts. Article VI § 1, Arizona Constitution.
The legislative history of the so-called open meeting statute demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Legislature had no intention of excluding any administrative agencies from the act. The decision of the majority puts back into the statute that which was struck from the bill by the Legislature. The act has now been amended by the court to exempt from the act “state agencies conducting hearings on contested cases.”
The exemption in the act, A.R.S. § 38-431.08, concerning “judicial proceedings” was, in my judgment, meant to cover just exactly what it said — “judicial” meaning courts. There is no hint that the Legislature really meant some quasi-judicial proceeding by an administrative agency. The Legislature had drawn a broad statute, and it acknowledged that the broad sweep of the statute did not apply to the independent department — the Judiciary.
While the majority have cited the dissenting opinion in Canney v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua Cty., 278 So.2d 260 (Fla.1973) as authority for their position, the majority of the Florida Supreme Court clearly pointed out, “The characterization of a decisional-making process by a School Board as ‘quasi-judicial’ does not make the body into a judicial body.” 278 So.2d 263. Finally that court also stated:
“Various boards and agencies have obviously attempted to read exceptions into the Government in the Sunshine Law which do not exist. Even though their intentions may be sincere, such boards and agencies should not be allowed to circumvent the plain provisions of the statute. The benefit to the public far outweighs the inconvenience of the board or agency. If the board or agency feels aggrieved, then the remedy lies in the halls of the Legislature and not in efforts to circumvent the plain provisions of the statute by devious ways in the hope that the judiciary will read some exception into the law.” 278 So.2d 264.
According to the decision today any administrative agency which holds hearings, considers evidence, and makes a written decision is conducting a “judicial proceeding,” and it is exempt from the open meeting law. For all practical purposes this rule will exempt many state agencies from the open meeting law, a result never intended by the Legislature.