Siegel v. Ariz. State Liquor Bd
In Siegel v. Ariz. State Liquor Bd., 167 Ariz. 400, 401, 807 P.2d 1136, 1137 (App. 1991) a person applied to the Arizona State Liquor Board for a transfer of a liquor license. 167 Ariz. at 401, 807 P.2d at 1137.
The state liquor superintendent denied the transfer, and on appeal, the Board voted 3-3 to reverse the decision. Id.
The Board's acting chairman declared that the tie vote upheld the superintendent's decision. Id.
The superior court held that the tie vote was not final for purposes of review and remanded it to the Board for further consideration. Id. The Court affirmed.
The Court rejected that reasoning because the provisions of the schemes in those cases were different than the scheme for the Liquor Board. Id. at 402, 807 P.2d at 1138.
The Court noted that the Liquor Board had seven members, a majority of the seven would constitute a quorum, and "a concurrence of a majority of a quorum is sufficient for taking any action." Id.
"If there are unfilled positions . . . a majority of those persons appointed and serving on the board constitutes a quorum." Id. at 402, 807 P.2d at 1138.
The Court reasoned that less than a majority of a quorum is insufficient for Board action and that "a majority of a quorum of six requires at least four votes" in agreement. Id.
Since "a majority of the quorum did not affirm, reverse or modify the Superintendent's decision," the Court affirmed the superior court's order that the 3-3 vote was not a Board action and remanded the matter to the Board for "a final decision in which a majority of a quorum of the Board concurs in the resolution" of the appeal. Id.