Court Opinion

ID: 9804564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:57:00.314629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:16:20.453829
License: Public Domain

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge, concurring. I concur with the decision of the majority to affirm the action taken by the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. I write separately regarding preservation of issues for appeal by persons appearing pro se before an administrative board. Appellant was notified by a letter of the Board dated February 8, 2013, that his application for a permit was going to be reviewed by the Board at its meeting on February 20, 2013. He was not notified in the letter that a revocation was being considered. Indeed, the Board’s attorney admitted at oral argument before this Court that no one anticipated that the Board would take the action that it did before the motion to revoke was made. After the motion was made, the Board voted and announced its decision to “revoke” appellant’s “permit” although a permit had never been issued. It appears that appellant failed to preserve his notice argument for appeal, as it was first raised to the circuit court in appellant’s petition for review of the Board’s decision. However, I find it troubling that it also appears that appellant was offered no real opportunity to object to improper notice of a revocation before the Board. I believe that under certain circumstances it would be unreasonable to require a person appearing pro se before an administrative board, who has been given no indication from that board that any action the average person would believe required the services of an attorney is being considered, to formally raise an argument before that administrative board 19in order to preserve it for appeal, especially an administrative body such as the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board that routinely conducts more informal proceedings than other administrative bodies, such as the Workers’ Compensation Commission or the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal. I concur in the result reached in this case because the facts presented are not sufficiently favorable to appellant such that a reexamination of the preservation requirements is warranted in this case. However, a case may come before our appellate courts that does present sufficiently favorable facts, and I highly suggest that our appellate courts take an opportunity to review what is necessary to preserve an issue before an administrative board at that time.