Bartlett v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Docket: S-7377
Court: Alaska Supreme Court; December 12, 1997; Alaska; State Supreme Court
The case involves an appeal by Lorrie, David, Anthony, and LaRae Bartlett against the State of Alaska's Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), which denied their applications for limited entry fishing permits. The CFEC ruled that the applications were submitted after the final deadline of March 18, 1975, and denied their request for an administrative hearing. The superior court upheld the CFEC's decision, which the Supreme Court of Alaska also affirmed.
In 1974, the CFEC sent out application forms, referred to as "yellow cards," to the Bartletts. They sought permits for various drift gill net fisheries in Southeastern and Bristol Bay. The application forms included critical instructions advising that applicants with 20 or more verifiable points would automatically receive a permit, while others were encouraged to complete all application sections.
The Bartletts claimed they consulted with CFEC Chairman Charles Stovall before the deadline, who allegedly advised them that they did not need to submit applications for fisheries where they lacked sufficient points. Based on this guidance, they chose to abandon their Bristol Bay applications, opting instead to pursue permits for Southeastern fisheries.
In 1984, prompted by a CFEC employee, the Bartletts requested their fishing activity history for contested set net sites in Bristol Bay. They referenced the Wassillie decision, believing it supported their right to apply. However, CFEC clarified that their request did not constitute a formal application and instructed them to contact Alaska Legal Services Corporation to submit an application under the Wassillie settlement by March 1, 1985.
Alaska Legal Services Corporation submitted applications for Bristol Bay set net permits on behalf of Lorrie and LaRae Bartlett, misrepresenting them as Alaska Natives despite both being Caucasian. Legal Services did not forward Anthony Bartlett's application due to his lack of Alaska Native status, but provided information on how to appeal that decision. It is uncertain if David Bartlett's application was submitted. On September 6, 1985, CFEC informed LaRae that her application was ineligible due to not holding a gear license between 1960 and 1972. Following an appeal by her mother, Judge Brian C. Shortell granted LaRae an extension to prove her eligibility, but she failed to provide evidence by the deadline. On February 13, 1986, CFEC determined Lorrie Bartlett was not a member of the settlement class, a decision he did not contest. In January and June 1989, the Bartletts submitted late applications citing former Commissioner Stovall's advice, but CFEC rejected them for being submitted fourteen years after the application period closed, in accordance with 20 AAC 05.515 (1997). CFEC denied their requests for a hearing, which was upheld by a hearing officer, and subsequent requests for reconsideration were also denied. The Bartletts appealed to the superior court, claiming violations of due process and equal protection. The superior court dismissed these claims, leading to the Bartletts' current appeal. The case will be reviewed independently by the appellate court, with constitutional issues assessed under independent judgment and CFEC's regulatory interpretations under a "reasonable basis" standard.
The CFEC did not violate the Bartletts' due process rights in denying them a hearing regarding their application for a limited entry fishing permit. Due process typically requires a hearing; however, if an application is clearly late and the applicant does not contest this fact, a hearing is unnecessary. The Bartletts argued that their applications fell under the "misadvice" exception due to reliance on CFEC's guidance, but CFEC maintained that the final application deadline established by 20 AAC 05.515 legally prevented the acceptance of late applications after January 2, 1981. This interpretation is supported by the state's interest in regulating the number of permits to promote economic benefits and conservation.
The Bartletts' claims of misadvice do not alter the outcome, as prior cases involved applications submitted before 20 AAC 05.515 came into effect. Therefore, the CFEC's denial of the Bartletts' applications did not raise any substantial issues warranting a hearing.
Additionally, the CFEC did not infringe upon the Bartletts' equal protection rights. The Bartletts alleged unequal treatment compared to members of the Wassillie settlement class but erroneously claimed that late applications were accepted under the misadvice exception for this group. The Wassillie lawsuit addressed constitutional violations unrelated to misadvice, and it was filed prior to the implementation of the deadline in question. Furthermore, the Bartletts' argument that they were denied equal protection by not being included in the Wassillie class is barred by res judicata, as they missed the opportunity to challenge their exclusion following the 1988 final judgment.
The superior court's decision to uphold CFEC's denial of the Bartletts' applications for limited entry fishing permits and their requests for a hearing is affirmed. The Wassillie settlement, originating from a class-action suit against CFEC in 1975, allowed for an extension of the application period due to barriers faced by Alaska Native individuals. Despite this, some eligible applicants failed to submit timely applications, leading to renewed litigation; however, the case settled before a decision was reached.
According to regulation 20 AAC 05.515, applications for permanent entry permits are not accepted once the maximum number of permits has been issued or after permits for that fishery have begun to be issued. Although the maximum for the fishery was achieved before August 10, 1978, the regulation did not come into effect until January 2, 1981. The Bartletts argued that discussions with a former CFEC commissioner should count as a timely application, but since they did not raise this argument earlier and acknowledged the lateness of their applications, it is not considered on appeal. Additionally, the Bartletts claimed that CFEC refused their applications in 1985 under the Wassillie settlement, but there is no clear assertion or evidence in the record that David and Anthony submitted applications at that time.
