(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I do not believe either statutory or case law supports the majority’s finding that complainant Doty has standing to appeal. The issue of standing to seek judicial review is distinct from the right to participate in agency proceedings. In re Implementation of Util. Energy Conservation Improvement Programs, 368 N.W.2d 308, 311-12 (Minn.App.1985). Participation in agency proceedings, alone, is insufficient to confer standing. Id. at 312. An individual who is adversely affected in fact by governmental action has standing to challenge the legality of that action, while one who is not adversely affected in fact lacks standing. 4 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise ch. 24 (2nd ed. 1983).
Our focus is on whether the agency decision has denied some personal or property right of the person seeking review, or has imposed some burden or obligation upon that person. In re Getsug, 290 Minn. 110, 114, 186 N.W.2d 686, 689 (1971). The fact that the person is acting in the public interest is insufficient to confer standing. Id. at 115-16, 186 N.W.2d at 689-90. A “concerned bystander” lacks standing to appeal in the absence of personal injury. Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 1703, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986).
Doty’s interest in promoting “an atmosphere for good government” and his concern “about the disposition of state funds” are commendable. However, that interest and that concern are not personal, and are indistinguishable from the interest and concern of all citizens. Doty has not established the existence of any personal injury resulting from the board’s action. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 482-83, 102 S.Ct. 752, 764, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) (citizen asserting right to government administered according to law lacks standing, in the absence of personal injury). While the public interest might be served by permitting judicial review of the board’s operations, that review must be sought by one who has actually been personally injured by the board s decision.
While Minnesota has not addressed the complainant’s standing to appeal from a decision of the ethical practices board, there are other contexts where a person authorized to make a complaint has no right to appeal the outcome of proceedings on the complaint. For instance, an individual who files a complaint against a lawyer has no right to judicial review of the summary dismissal of that complaint without a hearing. Kennedy v. L.D., 430 N.W.2d 833, 838 (Minn.1988). The public interests in lawyer discipline matters are analogous to the public interests in campaign spending and disclosures.
Individuals who object to the severity of the punishment imposed on a subject of agency proceedings must demonstrate that their own interests are affected directly by the outcome of the proceedings, if they are to obtain judicial review. Mankato Aglime & Rock Co. v. City of Mankato, 434 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn.App.1989). Like Doty here, the parties seeking review in Mankato Aglime had participated in the agency proceedings. However, despite that participation, this court concluded they lacked standing to object to the penalty imposed on another. Id. Certainly, the public had an interest in fair proceedings before the Department of Transportation in Mankato Aglime. While I agree with the majority that the public has an interest in the fairness of the board’s proceedings in this case, I am unable to distinguish Man-kato Aglime; I believe it should control our decision here.
Doty’s rights were not determined by the board. The final decision constitutes the board’s evaluation of the conduct of Pap-pas, and it imposes certain obligations upon her. In Mankato Aglime, we held that the right of appeal is limited to the subject of the complaint. Id. In this case that right would be Pappas’ and hers alone.