in favor of the Final Order awarding PNM an Emergency FPPCAC. {34} In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, neither due process nor the concept of a fair hearing requires “that the actual taking of testimony be before the same officers as are to determine the matter involved.” E.H. Sehopler, Annotation, Administrative Decision by Officer Not Present When Evidence Was Taken, 18 A.L.R.2d 606, § 3 (1951). Rather, “the majority of cases hold that in order to comply with due process it is only required that members not present when testimony is taken review the testimony before participating in the decision.” Lewandoski v. Vermont State Colleges, 142 Vt. 446, 457 A.2d 1384, 1387 (1983); see also Schmidt v. Beeson Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 869 P.2d 1170, 1179 (Alaska 1994) (<HOLDING>); Clairborne v. Coffeyville Mem’l Hosp., 212
holding that the decision as to the weight to be afforded to documentary evidence  lies largely within the discretion of the ij holding that an administrative officers attendance at evidentiary hearings is not necessary so long as the officer reviews the transcript and documentary evidence prior to rendering a decision holding that without transcript of trial proceedings appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial courts judgment is not supported by evidence holding that a forfeiture action is timely so long as at least an administrative action is filed within the 120day statutory period holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision