223, 227-28 (Wyo.1986) (UrbigMt, J., concurring specially, joined by Thomas, C.J., & Brown, J., in separate special concurrence) (“[A]n agency ... may reconsider a decision if the agency has adopted rules ... regarding such reconsideration procedures.”). But see In re Application for Authority to Conduct Savings & Loan Activities, 182 Mont. 361, 597 P.2d 84, 87-88 (1979) (declining to rule on “whether an administrative agency has inherent power to reconsider its decision”); Suryan v. Alaska Indus. Bd., 12 Alaska 571, 573 (1950) (“[A]n administrative body has no power to grant a rehearing or to set aside or modify its decisions except by virtue of express statutory provision or by necessary implication.”); Yamada v. Natural Disaster Claims Comm’n, 54 Haw. 621, 513 P.2d 1001, 1004 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Armijo v. Save ‘N Gain, 108 N.M. 281, 771
holding that administrative decisions are subject to reconsideration as long as the agency still retains control of the proceeding holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions holding that the judicial privilege does not apply to an allegation concerning a school teacher made by an adult former student before commencement of any quasijudicial proceeding and without an intent that it lead to a quasijudicial proceeding holding that cue review applies only to prior final decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction ros and not to prior decisions of the board holding that a statutory basis is necessary for an administrative body to initiate reconsideration of its prior final quasijudicial decisions