Warren Steen Construction, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Warren Steen Construction operated a sand and gravel mine where a stacker-conveyor contacted an energized 12,000-volt power line while being moved, killing miner Gary Jobe. The Commission affirmed findings that the operator violated 30 C.F.R. § 56.12071 by operating equipment within the required clearance without deenergizing the lines or taking adequate precautions, and that the violation resulted from unwarrantable failure. It also affirmed Warren Steen's individual section 110(c) liability because he knowingly authorized the operation without adequate precautions. The Commission upheld civil penalties of $16,000 against the company and $5,000 against Steen.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. § 56.12071; 30 U.S.C. §§ 820(c) and 820(i)
• Outcome: The violations, unwarrantable-failure finding, individual liability, and $21,000 in civil penalties were affirmed.
• Key point: An operator that knowingly moves large metal equipment near energized power lines without adequate precautions may face unwarrantable-failure findings and individual supervisor liability.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
MSHA V. WARREN STEEN
DDATE:
19920730
TTEXT:
July 30, 1992
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v. Docket Nos. LAKE 89-68-M
LAKE 89-93-M
WARREN STEEN CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
AND WARREN STEEN, Employed by
Warren Steen Construction, Inc.

BEFORE: Ford, Chairman; Backley, Doyle, Holen and Nelson, Commissioners
DECISION
BY THE COMMISSION:
This proceeding arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, 30 U.S.C. • 801 et seq. (1988) ("Mine Act" or "Act"). The issues are:
(1) whether Warren Steen Construction, Inc. ("W.S.C.") violated 30 C.F.R.
 56.12071(Footnote 1) when it operated a stacker-conveyor(Footnote 2) nea
energized high-voltage power lines and, if so, whether that violation was
caused by its unwarrantable failure to comply with the standard; (2) whether
Warren Steen ("Steen") is individually liable under section 110(c) of the
Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. • 820(c), for authorizing the alleged violation; and, (3)
whether the civil penalties assessed against W.S.C. and Mr. Steen are
supported by substantial evidence. Following an evidentiary hearing,
Commission Administrative Law Judge James A. Broderick concluded that W.S.
C.
had violated section 56.12071, that the violation had been caused by its
unwarrantable failure, and that Steen was individually liable for the
violation. 13 FMSHRC 256 (February 1991)(ALJ). The judged assessed an
$8,000
civil penalty against W.S.C. for the violation

1 30 C.F.R. • 56.12071, a mandatory safety standard applicable to surface
metal and nonmetal mines, provides, "[w]hen equipment must be moved or
operated near energized high-voltage powerlines (other than trolley lines) and
the clearance is less than 10 feet, the lines shall be deenergized or other
precautionary measures shall be taken."

2 A stacker-conveyor is an adjustable piece of equipment that can be raised or
lowered with a hydraulic system located on the "stacker"; it was used by

Page 2

W.S. Construction to convey sand and gravel up to stockpiles. Tr. 13.
~1126
of section 56.12071 involving the stacker-conveyor (Footnote 3) and assessed a
civil penalty against Steen in the amount of $5,000. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm the judge's decision.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
At all times relevant to this case, W.S.C. operated the Steen Pit Mine,
a sand and gravel mine located in Moose Lake, Minnesota, and Steen was the
president and owner of W.S.C.(Footnote 4) On July 1, 1988, W.S.C. employees,
Jack Hufford and Gary Jobe, attempted to move an 80-foot Nordberg
stackerconveyor
in order to make a new row of gravel piles. The stacker-conveyor was
first attached with a chain to a front-end loader's bucket. Mr. Hufford, who
operated the front-end loader, and Mr. Jobe, who walked along beside it in
order to give Hufford directions, then began to move the stacker-conveyor by
pulling it with the front-end loader. Hufford testified that they "started
swinging [the stacker-conveyor] to the side to start a row of piles" and, as
the stacker-conveyor swung back and forth, it passed near the power lines.
Tr. 49, 50-51.
In an attempt to stop the stacker-conveyor, Jobe threw a plank on the
ground at the desired location, pulled the wheel up on it, and then placed
a second piece of lumber perpendicular to the plank under the wheel and
motioned for Hufford to stop.(Footnote 5) Tr. 20, 49. The stacker-conveyor
continued to roll over the wood, gaining momentum. Jobe pushed against the
frame in an attempt to stop it, but the stacker-conveyor contacted the
overhead power lines. Jobe was electrocuted as a result.
The overhead power lines, owned by Minnesota Power & Light ("MP&L"), ran
approximately 12,000 volts of current, and were 19 feet-9 1/2 inches above
the ground at their lowest point. Tr. 19, 57. At the point of contact, the
power line contacted was approximately 22 feet-1/4 inch above the ground. Tr.

19. The height of the stacker-conveyor at its discharge point was 23 feet. Tr.
    18.
    On July 5, 1988, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
    which had been informed of the accident, contacted the Department of Labor's
    Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") about the matter. Later that
    day, MSHA Inspector Jim King visited the mine and spoke with Mark Belich, an
    assistant engineer for MP&L, and with Steen's son, and took photographs.
    Inspector King testified that Mr. Belich informed him that, prior to the

3 The judge also assessed a separate $8,000 civil penalty for another
violation of the same standard.

4 Steen sold the mine on May 1, 1989.

Page 3

5 The planks used by Jobe measured 2x4 inches, and approximately four to five
feet long, and 4x4 inches, and approximately four feet long, respectively.
Tr. 41, 49. Jobe did not use the chock blocks that came from the manufacturer
with the stacker. Tr. 75-76.
~1127
accident, Steen had discussed with MP&L representatives the possibility of
relocating the power lines so that they would not interfere with ongoing work
at the mine. Tr. 12-13, 43. Inspector King returned to the mine on July 6,
1988, to continue his investigation and found that the stacker-conveyor had
been moved to a location approximately 75 feet from the power lines. Tr. 28.
Inspector King spoke with Steen, Hufford, and another MP&L representative
about the accident. Based upon his investigation, Inspector King issued to
W.S.C. a section 104(d)(1) citation alleging a significant and substantial
("S&S") violation of section 56.12071, caused by the operator's unwarrantable
failure to comply with the standard.
During his investigation on July 6, Inspector King noticed that a
feeder-conveyor was operating close to the power line.(Footnote 6) Tr. 25,
28-29. After receiving authorization to conduct a regular inspection of the
mine, Inspector King determined that the clearance between the feeder-conveyor
and the power line was approximately eight feet. Inspector King then spoke
with Steen about moving the feeder-conveyor. Steen replied that he had a few
more weeks of work remaining at that location, and that he would move the
equipment after he finished it. Tr. 27, 36, 82. Inspector King then issued
to W.S.C. a section 104(d)(1) order, alleging a second S&S violation of
section 56.12071, caused by the operator's unwarrantable failure. The order
was terminated after the feeder-conveyor was shut down and moved away from
the
power line. S. Exh. 4.
The Secretary proposed that civil penalties be assessed against W.S.C.
in the amount of $7,000 for the alleged violation involving the stacker-
conveyor, and $8,000 for the alleged violation involving the feeder-conveyer.
The Secretary also proposed that a civil penalty in the amount of $4,000 be
assessed against Steen individually under section 110(c) of the Mine Act
because, she alleged, he knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out a
violation of section 56.12071 involving the stacker-conveyor.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge found that W.S.C. had
violated section 56.12071 in both instances, and that the violations were S&S
and caused by the operator's unwarrantable failure. He first determined that
W.S.C. had violated the standard through its operation of the stacker-conveyor
within 10 feet of an energized high-voltage power line, "so that the conveyor
came in contact with the line," without the power line having been deenergized
or other precautionary measures taken. 13 FMSHRC at 260. The judge found
that the violation was S&S because a miner had been electrocuted as a result
of the violation. Id. In addition, the judge concluded that the violation
was unwarrantable and resulted from the operator's "reckless disregard" for

Page 4

the safety of miners, because the operator had been cautioned about working
too close to the power lines before the accident, and because the operator
should have recognized that operation of a large metal machine under a high
voltage line is inherently dangerous. Id. The judge assessed a civil penalty
in the amount of $8,000 against W.S.C., rather than the $7,000 penalty
proposed by the Secretary.

6 The feeder-conveyor was used by W.S.C. to transport material from a
portable crushing and screening unit to a stacker-conveyor. Tr. 13-14.
~1128
The judge also sustained the citation alleging a violation of section
56.12071 involving the feeder-conveyor because he found that W.S.C. operated
"the conveyor" directly below energized high-voltage power lines at a distance
of 8 to 8 1/2 feet. Id.(Footnote 7) He determined that the violation was S&S
because it "was extremely serious and was likely to result in serious injury
if mining had been allowed to continue." Id. He noted that the operator had
experienced a fatal accident five days earlier as a result of the same
condition and that, therefore, the operator had unwarrantably failed to comply
with the standard. 13 FMSHRC at 260-61. He then assessed the proposed civil
penalty of $8,000 against the operator. 13 FMSHRC at 261.
Concerning Steen's individual liability under section 110(c) of the Act,
the judge found that Steen exhibited a reckless disregard for safety and
knowingly authorized operation of the equipment close to high-voltage power
lines. 13 FMSHRC at 261. The judge assessed a civil penalty in the amount of
$5000 against Steen, rather than the $4,000 penalty proposed by the Secretary.
The Commission subsequently granted W.S.C.'s and Steen's petition for
discretionary review, in which they dispute the stacker-conveyor violation,
whether that violation was caused by the operator's unwarrantable failure,
whether Steen is individually liable, and the amount of the three civil
penalties assessed by the judge.(Footnote 8)
II.
Disposition of Issues
A. Citation involving stacker-conveyor
The judge found that W.S.C. violated section 56.12071 when its stacker-
conveyor was operated near energized high-voltage power lines, clearance was
less than 10 feet, and the power lines had not been deenergized, or other
adequate precautionary measures taken. The petitioners argue that these

7 In his findings of fact, the judge stated that on July 6, 1988, "the
stacker-conveyor was still below the energized 12,000 volt power line. It was
approximately 8 feet directly below the line." 13 FMSHRC at 258 (emphasis
added). The operator argues that this finding of fact is not supported by the
evidence. P. Br. at 2. The record reveals that, in fact, the stacker-conveyor
had been moved to a location 75 feet away from the power line but on
July 6, 1988, the feeder-conveyor was operating approximately eight feet from

Page 5

the power line. Tr. 28-29. Although the judge misspoke as to the particular
conveyor, we conclude that his error was harmless. In this case, the specific
piece of equipment operating near the energized power line in violation of
section 56.12071 is irrelevant.

8 The Secretary maintains that the petitioners have not sought review of the
finding that the stacker-conveyor violation was caused by W.S.C.'s
unwarrantable failure. S. Br. at 5 n.5. In fact, W.S.C. has sought review of
this issue by disputing the judge's fourth conclusion of law, in which the
judge determined that the stacker-conveyor violation occurred as a result of
the operator's unwarrantable failure. P. Br. at 2; 13 FMSHRC at 260.
~1129
findings are contrary to law and are not supported by substantial evidence.
P. Br. at 2. We disagree.
The evidence is undisputed that, as the stacker-conveyor swung back and
forth while it was being moved, it passed near the energized high-voltage
power lines. Tr. 24, 50-51. Clearance between the stacker-conveyor and the
power lines was less than 10 feet. The height of the power lines was
approximately 19 feet-9 1/2 inches at the lowest point and 22 feet-1/4 inch at
the contact point, while the stacker-conveyor's discharge height was
approximately 23 feet. Tr. 18-19. The power lines were not deenergized, and
Inspector King testified that Jobe's use of wooden planks to control movement
of the stacker-conveyor was an inadequate precautionary measure. Tr. 21. No
other precautionary measures were taken. We conclude that the foregoing
evidence constitutes substantial evidence in support of the judge's findings,
and we affirm his determination that W.S.C. violated section 56.12071 in its
operation of the stacker-conveyor.
Substantial evidence also supports the judge's finding that the stacker-
conveyor violation was caused by W.S.C.'s unwarrantable failure to comply with
section 56.12071. The Commission has determined that unwarrantable failure is
aggravated conduct constituting more than ordinary negligence. Emery Mining
Corporation, 9 FMSHRC 1997, 2004 (December 1987); Youghiogheny & Ohio
Coal
Company, 9 FMSHRC 2007, 2010 (December 1987).
W.S.C.'s actions resulting in the stacker-conveyor violation were
properly characterized by the judge as aggravated. It is common knowledge
that power lines are hazardous, and the standard itself provides notice that
precautions are required when working near power lines with heavy equipment.
In addition, W.S.C. had been warned by MP&L representatives before the
accident that it was operating too close to the lines. Tr. 59. The evidence
reveals that Steen knew that the stacker-conveyor would be operated near
energized power lines and that the clearance would be less than 10 feet. Tr.
18-19, 24, 50-51, 79. Steen testified that the stacker-conveyor had been set
up in the cited location since the previous September 1987. Tr. 79. In fact,
he helped move it to that location. Tr. 75. The record also discloses that

Page 6

W.S.C. was actually aware, through Steen, of the dangers involved in working
around energized power lines. Steen testified that he had discussed with
employees how to move the stacker-conveyor so as to avoid contact with the
power lines. Tr. 72-73. Hufford also testified that he knew about the
dangers associated with power lines from personal experience, although Steen
had never discussed those dangers with him. Tr. 54.
W.S.C. also had sufficient knowledge, through Steen, that adequate
precautionary measures were not being taken, in that Steen knew that the
power lines had not been deenergized or relocated and that no steps had been
taken to prevent contact between the stacker-conveyor and the energized power
lines. Tr. 16, 24, 50-51. Even if the use of chock blocks were assumed to
constitute an adequate precautionary measure, W.S.C. did not ensure that the
miners were trained regarding their use. Jobe, who had been employed at the
mine for two months before the accident, had never received formal training,
and used wooden planks rather than the chock blocks, in an attempt to control
the movement of the stacker-conveyor. Tr. 40-41, 52, 75-76.(Footnote 9)
Although the operator knew of the dangers involved in operating large
metal machinery near energized power lines, it directly exposed its miners to
such hazards without regard for their safety and without taking precautions.
Such conduct is aggravated, and constitutes more than ordinary negligence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judge's finding that W.S.C.'s violation of section
56.12071 was caused by its unwarrantable failure to comply with the standard.
B. Section 110(c) liability
In relevant part, section 110(c) provides:
Whenever a corporate operator violates a
mandatory health or safety standard ..., any director,
officer, or agent of such corporation who knowingly
authorized, ordered, or carried out such violation,
... shall be subject to the same civil penalties,
fines, and imprisonment that may be imposed upon a
person under subsections (a) and (d) of this section.
30 U.S.C. • 820(c). The judge found that Steen had sufficient knowledge of
the dangers associated with operating equipment near energized high-voltage
power lines to support a finding of individual liability under section 110(c)
of the Mine Act. 13 FMSHRC at 261.
Preliminarily, the evidence is undisputed that at all times relevant to
this case, W.S.C. was a corporation, and Steen was its president. Tr. 5, 68;
S. Exh. 2. As we concluded above, substantial evidence supports the judge's
finding that W.S.C. violated section 56.12071 through its operation of the
stacker-conveyor. Steen challenges whether substantial evidence supports the
judge's finding that he "knowingly authorized" W.S.C.'s violation within the
meaning of section 110(c). We conclude that it does.
Steen argues that the judge's conclusion that he "knowingly authorized
the violations in reckless disregard for the safety of his employees is

Page 7

without any factual basis whatsoever." P. Br. at 2. Steen maintains that he
was not at the pit at the time of the accident and played no part in the
actual events that led to the death of Jobe. P. Br. at 4. He also asserts that
the mine had previously been inspected, apparently when the equipment was set
up in the same location, and that no violations had been cited. P. Br. at

5. He also argues that his discussions with MP&L centered around "some piles
   of gravel that might constitute a hazard if a front-end loader were operated
   on the piles" and that they did not discuss the stacker-conveyor. P. Br. at

9 It should be noted that since October 1, 1979, Congress, through the
appropriations process, has prohibited MSHA from enforcing safety training
regulations at certain types of surface nonmetal mines, including the Steen
Pit Mine.
~1131
2, 4. Steen further contends that he was not aware of the standard requiring
10 feet clearance from the power line, and that he did not knowingly and
intentionally tell his employees to position the equipment in such a fashion
that it would be in violation of federal law. Tr. 73, 77; P. Br. at 5. We
reject Steen's arguments.
In order to establish section 110(c) liability, the Secretary must prove
only that an individual knowingly acted, not that the individual knowingly
violated the law. See, e.g., United States v. Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp.,
402 U.S. 558, 563 (1971). Steen's claimed ignorance of the law is not a
viable defense. Id. at 563. Further, the fact that Steen was not present at
the mine at the time of the accident is no defense to the finding that he had
knowingly authorized the moving of the stacker-conveyor. Hufford testified
that on the day of the accident, Steen would have been the individual who gave
the orders to move the stacker-conveyor in order to construct new stockpiles.
Tr. 50. As noted earlier, Steen was aware that the stacker-conveyor would be
operated near energized power lines and that the clearance would be less than
10 feet. Thus, it is clear that Steen knowingly authorized miners to move
large metal machinery near energized high-voltage power lines, yet failed to
ensure that adequate precautionary measures were taken to prevent the hazards
associated with that procedure.
The fact that MSHA may not have previously taken enforcement action with
respect to the set-up of the stacker-conveyor does not obviate finding
liability against Steen. The Commission has recognized that prior instances
of inconsistent action by MSHA do not constitute a viable defense to
liability. See, e.g., King Knob Coal Co., 3 FMSHRC 1417, 1421-22 (June 1981).
Finally, Steen's argument that he had not been forewarned that the cited
conduct was hazardous, because the MP&L representative did not specifically
mention the stacker-conveyor, is unavailing; MP&L's warning was broadly
directed to working near power lines. More importantly, the standard gives
clear notice that operation within 10 feet of a power line requires
precautionary measures. Accordingly, we affirm the judge's finding that Steen

Page 8

knowingly authorized W.S.C.'s actions in violation of section 56.12071, within
the meaning of section 110(c) of the Act.
C. Assessment of civil penalties
W.S.C. and Steen argue that the civil penalties assessed against them
are not supported by evidence or by law. P. Br. at 2. They emphasize that
the record shows no prior violations, that the violations were promptly
abated, and that the accident was not caused by reckless actions of Steen but
occurred as a result of Jobe's negligence.
When a judge's penalty assessment is at issue on review, the Commission
must determine whether the penalty is supported by substantial evidence and is
consistent with the statutory penalty criteria set forth in section 110(i) of
the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. • 820(i). See, e.g., Westmoreland Coal Co., 8 FMSHRC
491, 492 (April 1986). Within this framework, we examine the civil penalties
assessed by the judge against the petitioners' arguments pertaining to its
history of previous violations, its negligence, and its good faith in
attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification of a violation. See
~1132
30 U.S.C. • 820(i).
Between July 6, 1986, and July 5, 1988, W.S.C. was cited for one
violation of a mandatory health or safety standard, which did not involve
section 56.12071. S-Exh. 10; Tr. 22, 74, 86. The judge found that the
operator's history of previous violations was such that an otherwise
appropriate penalty should not be increased because of it. 13 FMSHRC at 257.
The judge's findings with respect to the operator's history of previous
violations are supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence also supports the judge's negligence findings. The
judge found that the violations committed by W.S.C. and Steen resulted from
their "reckless disregard" for the safety of miners. 13 FMSHRC at 260-61.
With respect to the feeder-conveyor violation, the record reveals that Steen
knew that the feeder-conveyor was operating below an energized power line, and
that an electrocution of one of his employees had occurred five days earlier
when another conveyor had been moved near the power line. Tr. 26-27, 29, 51.
Such evidence supports the judge's characterization of W.S.C.'s conduct as
involving a high degree of negligence.
The judge also properly characterized the petitioners' violative conduct
involving the stacker-conveyor as involving a high degree of negligence. As
discussed above, the operator's conduct involving the stacker-conveyor
violation was unwarrantable, i.e., amounted to aggravated conduct constituting
more than ordinary negligence.
The petitioners also argue that the stacker-conveyor accident was caused
by an employee's negligence and that the accident was unintentional. The
Commission has found that, in some instances, an operator may be found
negligent, even though the violation was committed by a non-supervisory
employee. In A.H. Smith Stone, 5 FMSHRC 13 (January 1983), the Commission
set

Page 9

forth the following guidelines:
The fact that a violation was committed by a nonsupervisory
employee does not necessarily shield an
operator from being deemed negligent. In this type of
case, we look to such considerations as the
foreseeability of the miner's conduct,the risks
involved, and the operator's supervising, training,
and disciplining of its employees to prevent
violations of the standard in issue.
5 FMSHRC at 15.
We apply the A.H. Smith guidelines to the judge's findings and the
record evidence involving the stacker-conveyor violation, and conclude that
Jobe's actions were foreseeable. As discussed above, Jobe was required to
move the stacker-conveyor near energized power lines, and the clearance
between the power lines and the stacker-conveyor was less than 10 feet.
Jobe's actions in using the planks to control the movement of the stacker-
conveyor were foreseeable because miners had used the planks in such a manner
in the past. Tr. 53-54. Second, the risks involved in moving the stacker-
conveyor near an energized power line were clearly serious. The stacker-
conveyor swung near the power lines and there was no clearance between the top
of the stacker-conveyor and the power lines at their lowest point. Contact
between the energized power line and the stacker-conveyor resulted in
electrocution. Third, the operator's supervision, training and discipline of
its employees with respect to this standard were inadequate. No designated
supervisor was on the premises at the time the stacker-conveyor was moved.
Tr. 72. Jobe had been hired only two months before the accident and had not
received any training, and no formal training had been provided to other
employees. Tr. 52, 54, 83. There was no evidence that the operator
disciplined employees in order to prevent violations of the standard. In sum,
consideration of the foreseeability of Jobe's conduct, the risks involved, and
the operator's lack of appropriate supervision, training and discipline leads
us to conclude that the judge properly found W.S.C. negligent.
As to Steen's individual challenge to the penalty assessed by the judge,
we refer to our earlier discussion of the section 110(c) violation. Further,
we concur with the judge that Steen, an individual with 20 years of
experience, who personally directed the operation, acted with a high degree
of negligence in allowing the stacker-conveyor to be operated so near to the
power lines. Thus, we disagree that the penalty imposed on Steen by the judge
was too harsh and, we affirm it.
The judge did not make specific findings with respect to the
demonstrated good faith of the petitioners in attempting to achieve rapid
compliance after notification of the violations. In such circumstances, we
may examine the record for pertinent undisputed evidence. Sellersburg Stone
Co., 5 FMSHRC 287 (March 1983), aff'd, Sellersburg Stone Co. v. FMSHRC,

Page 10

736
F.2d 1147, 1153 (7th Cir. 1984). The record reveals that the petitioners
abated the stacker-conveyor citation by moving the stacker-conveyor 75 feet
from its previous location. Tr. 28. Although the petitioners did not unduly
delay abatement of the stacker-conveyor violation, their operation of the
feeder-conveyor in the same location weighs heavily against a finding of
demonstrated good faith compliance. When he was notified that the
feeder-conveyor was operating too close to the power lines, Steen asked for two
or three weeks time before he would be required to move it so that he could
finish work in that area. Such conduct does not support a decrease in the
civil penalties assessed by the judge.
In sum, we conclude that the three civil penalties assessed by the judge
against W.S.C. and Steen are consistent with the statutory criteria and are
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the civil penalties
of $16,000 assessed against W.S.C., and $5,000 assessed against Steen.
~1134
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judge's findings that
W.S.C. violated section 56.12071 through its operation of the stacker-
conveyor and that this violation resulted from its unwarrantable failure. We
also affirm the judge's determination that Steen is individually liable under
section 110(c) of the Act for knowingly authorizing W.S.C.'s violation of
section 56.10271 involving the stacker-conveyor. Finally, we affirm the civil
penalties assessed by the judge against W.S.C. and Steen.
Ford B. Ford, Chairman
Richard V. Backley, Commissioner
Joyce A. Doyle, Commissioner
Arlene Holen, Commissioner
L. Clair Nelson, Commissioner