Other Arguments Fail. Given this conclusion, I would reach the Jerrels’ Open Meetings Act and due process argu 6 . See Op. at 143-144. 17 . Op. at 139. 18 . See Kodiak Seafood Processors, 900 P.2d at 1197 (agency action was not regulation when it affected only one individual). 19 . AS 03.40.020; see 11 AAC 60.070. 20 . 11 AAC 60.070. 21 . Op. at 144. 22 . See 11 AAC 60.070. 23 . See AS 38.05.035. 24 . See AS 38.05.005 (establishing Division of Lands); AS 38.05.020(b)(1) (stating that DNR Commissioner may adopt reasonable regulations); AS 38.05.035 (showing that Division of Lands director has not been delegated regulatory authority). 25 . See Kachemak Bay Watch, 935 P.2d at 825; Kodiak Seafood Processors, 900 P.2d at 1197. 26 . Kachemak Bay Watch, 935 P.2d at 825-26. 27 . See id. (<HOLDING>); Kodiak Seafood Processors, 900 P.2d at
holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that if the legislature has granted the agency discretion over a particular matter then we review the agencys action pursuant to the deferential abuse of discretion standard  bearing in mind that the legislature determines the boundaries of that discretion holding that under mayfield the exercise of discretion based on a mistaken premise of law can be a failure to properly exercise discretion holding that the faas action in this case was  analogous to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion  and noting that when prosecutorial discretion is at issue the matter is presumptively committed to agency discretion by law holding that dnrs exercise of task assigned to it by legislature invariably involved exercise of agency discretion and did not constitute regulation under apa nor abuse of discretion