arbitrary and capricious standard in Alaska

1997In State v. Public Safety Employees Ass’n, 798 P.2d 1281, 1287-88 (Alaska 1990), in the context of compulsory “interest” arbitration, we indicated in dictum that a heightened standard of judicial review might be constitutionally required. 5 In addition to noting that his participation in the arbitration was compelled by Bar Rule, thus distinguishing it from voluntary arbitration under the UAA, Butler suggests that the subject matter of the case at bar is akin to “interest arbitration” as defined in Public Safety Employees Ass’n.

1992Safety Employees Ass’n, 798 P.2d 1281, 1287 (Alaska 1990) (“we believe it appropriate to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard when reviewing awards in compulsory interest arbitrations”); Dep’t of Pub.

1995See id. ■ We hold that the arbitrary and capricious standard was violated because the arbitrator failed to apply correctly controlling statutory provisions in reaching his decision.

1994State v. 0.644 Acres, More or Less, 613 P.2d 829, 833 (Alaska 1980); Moore v. State, 553 P.2d 8 , 34 n. 12 (Alaska 1976).

1990Later, in Jager v. State, 537 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Alaska 1975), we correctly observed that such actions are *293 reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard.

1990However, in the same portion of that opinion we also discussed the reasonable basis standard, id., and then purported to apply the “ ‘reasonable and not arbitrary’ standard for review of administrative regulations.” 537 P.2d at 1108 (emphasis added).