On appeal we may correct an administrative agency's misapplication of the law. Conwell v. City of Albuquerque, 97 N.M. 136, 138, 637 P.2d 567, 569 (1981); Ortiz v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dep't, 105 N.M. 313, 315, 731 P.2d 1357, 1359 (Ct.App. 1986). OTC does not dispute the Commission's authority to decide common carrier applications.
To determine that funding must be certain in order that a publicly employed person may have a reasonable assurance of employment would be tantamount to nullifying Section 52-06-02(12). Thus the uncertainty of funding does not deprive a person of reasonable assurance of employment. Russ v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 125 Cal.App.3d 834, 178 Cal.Rptr. 421 (1982); Zeek v. Employment Div., 65 Or. App. 515, 672 P.2d 349 (1983); Ortiz v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept., 105 N.M. 313, 731 P.2d 1357 (N.M.App. 1986); Samuels v. Employment Sec. Dept., 37 Wn. App. 409, 680 P.2d 764 (1984). The statute requires neither an unconditional assurance of future reemployment [ Zeek, supra] nor a guarantee of reemployment [ Jennings v. Employment Sec. Dept., 34 Wn. App. 592, 663 P.2d 849 (1983)].