from Complainant's counsel raising concerns about whistleblower investigations being performed by the OSHA Region VI office. Fairfax, in his Memorandum, states that Complainant's counsel previously has corresponded with the Secretary about these concerns, and that Complainant's counsel has raised similar complaints about investigative work in other OSHA regional offices. Fairfax also states in his Memorandum that Complainant's counsel "has also asked for the recusal of all Administrative Law Judges who have presided over hearings for his clients, and made charges against Chief Administrative Law Judge John Vittone and Administrative Review Board Member Cynthia Atwood [sic]."

   Complainant contends that the Fairfax Memorandum's reference to ARB Member Attwood "raises a clear question as to whether there was any an [sic] ex parte communication between Mr. Fairfax and a member of the ARB or its staff on matters being litigated before them."

   Quo warranto is "the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise." Newman v. United States el rel. Frizzle, 238 U.S. 537, 545-546 (1915). It has been defined as "'an information, criminal in form, presented to a court of competent jurisdiction, by the public prosecutor, for the purpose of correcting the usurpation, mis-user, or non-user, of a public office or corporate franchise . . . and while still retaining its criminal form, it has long since come to be regarded as in substance, a civil proceeding, instituted by the public prosecutor, upon the relation of private citizens, for the determination of purely civil rights.'" United States ex rel. State of Wisconsin v. First Federal Savings and Loan Assoc., 248 F.2d 804, 807 (7th Cir. 1957)(citation omitted).

   An administrative agency is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction which may exercise only the powers granted to it by statute. Pentheny, Ltd. v. Virgin Islands, 360 F.2d 786, 790 (3d Cir. 1966). Accord Federal Trade Commission v. National Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 428 (1957). The environmental statutes under which Complainant has sought relief do not confer quo warranto jurisdiction upon the Administrative Review Board, nor has Complainant cited to any other source of such jurisdiction. Cf. United States ex rel. State of Wisconsin v. First Federal Savings and Loan Assoc., supra, 248 F. 2d at 808 (except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, there is no original jurisdiction in the federal district court to entertain quo warranto actions). Accordingly, Complainant's motion for a quo warranto hearing is DENIED. Furthermore, the denial of Complainant's motion for a quo warranto hearing renders moot his motion to order DOL and DOE employees to answer questions. The purpose of these questions is to adduce evidence to be presented in the quo warranto proceeding. Consequently. the motion to order DOL and DOE employees to answer questions is also DENIED.

   Finally, the Board, of course, must consider carefully the allegation that a Board Member's participation in a case would raise an appearance of impropriety. However, we strongly disagree with Complainant's assertion that Fairfax's Memorandum raises a "clear" question as to the existence of any ex parte communication, whether direct or indirect, between Board Member Attwood and Fairfax. Member Attwood does not know Richard D. Fairfax, and to her knowledge has never had any direct or indirect communication with him. No Board Member has communicated with Fairfax, and we are not aware that any member of the Administrative Review Board's staff has communicated with Fairfax. We therefore conclude that Member Attwood's consideration of Complainant's case would not create an appearance of impropriety because Complainant's allegation that Member Attwood possibly engaged in ex parte communication with Richard Fairfax is baseless.

   SO ORDERED.

      PAUL GREENBERG
      Chair

      E. COOPER BROWN
      Member

      CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD
      Member