Section 227.47 - Decisions(1) Except as provided in sub. (2), every proposed or final decision of an agency or hearing examiner following a hearing and every final decision of an agency shall be in writing accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall consist of a concise and separate statement of the ultimate conclusions upon each material issue of fact without recital of evidence. Every proposed or final decision shall include a list of the names and addresses of all persons who appeared before the agency in the proceeding who are considered parties for purposes of review under s. 227.53. The agency shall by rule establish a procedure for determination of parties.(2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a proposed or final decision of the employment relations commission, hearing examiner or arbitrator concerning an appeal of the decision of the administrator of the division of personnel management in the department of administration made under s. 230.09(2) (a) or (d) shall not be accompanied by findings of fact or conclusions of law. If within 30 days after the commission issues a decision in such an appeal either party files a petition for judicial review of the decision under s. 227.53 and files a written notice with the commission that the party has filed such a petition, the commission shall issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law within 90 days after receipt of the notice. The court shall stay the proceedings pending receipt of the findings and conclusions.Amended by Acts 2015 ch, 55,s 3596, eff. 7/14/2015.1975 c. 414 s. 15; 1977 c. 418; 1979 c. 208; 1985 a. 182 ss. 33r, 57; Stats. 1985 s. 227.47; 1993 a. 16, 491; 2003 a. 33 ss. 2376, 2377, 9160. Absent controlling legislation to the contrary, determinations by administrative agencies acting in a judicial capacity are generally given preclusive effect in subsequent court actions between the same parties. Certain conditions must, however, be met: 1) the administrative proceeding must have been properly before the agency; 2) the administrative agency must have been acting in a judicial capacity; 3) the issues for which preclusion is sought must have been actually determined by the administrative agency; and 4) the parties must have had an adequate opportunity to litigate those issues before the administrative agency. Hlavinka v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc. 174 Wis.2d 381, 497 NW 2d 756 (Ct. App. 1993).