The Office of Administrative
Hearings
The Eighteenth Annual Report
to
Governor Janice K. Brewer
Senator Andy Biggs, President of the Senate
Representative Andy Tobin, Speaker of the House

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.01(C)(5)
and
A.R.S. § 41-1092.01(C)(9)

Cliff J. Vanell, Director
November 1, 2013

Contents
I. Introduction and Overview................................................................................. 1
II. Continued Development of the Office...............................................................
1. Certifications in ROC Cases....................................................................
2. Entry of ROC Final Orders.......................................................................
3. Automation in Exhibit Indexing in Web-Based Dockets .......................
4. Implementation of Personnel Reform.....................................................
5. Consultation with Superior Court Regarding Submission of
Electronic Appeals Records........................................................................
6. Five-Year Rule Review .............................................................................
7. Proposed Rulemaking .............................................................................

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

III. Summary of Agency Use of OAH Services....................................................... 3
1. Case Management................................................................................... 3
a. Breakdown of Cases Filed by Agency ................................................. 3
b. Number of Cases Concluded Versus Cases Filed .............................. 4
c. Timeline of Case Management ........................................................... 5
d. Incidence of Continuance.................................................................... 6
2. Evaluation ................................................................................................. 9
a. Results of Public Evaluation ................................................................. 9
b. Incidence of Rehearing and Appeal .................................................... 11
IV. Acceptance of Administrative Law Judge Decisions by Agencies.............. 12
1. Agency Action ........................................................................................ 12
2. Agency Inaction With Subsequent OAH Certification of Finality....... 15
V. Motions for Change of Administrative Law Judge Granted Pursuant to
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07........................................................................................... 16
VI. Violations of A.R.S. § 41-1009 ......................................................................... 16
VII. Recommendations for Changes in the Administrative Procedures Act ..... 16
1. Establish uniform standards for appeal rights notice ........................ 16
2. Establish uniform basis for rehearing.................................................. 16
3. Conform rehearing and appeal rules.................................................... 17
VIII. Recommendation for Changes or Improvements in Agency Practice
with Respect to the Administrative Procedures Act................................... 17
Recoupment of Costs for Administrative Hearings ................................. 17

I.

Introduction and Overview

The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was created pursuant to Laws 1995, Chapter 251,
adding Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-1092 et seq., and commenced operation on January 1, 1996.
Administrative hearings previously provided by regulatory agencies (except those specifically exempted) were transferred to OAH for independent proceedings. The Phoenix office currently has 17
full-time positions, including the Director, the Office Manager, 10 Administrative Law Judges, and 5
support staff. In addition to having conducted hearings in Phoenix, OAH videoconferenced Registrar
of Contractors hearings in Flagstaff, Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Show Low, and Yuma. Our statutory mandate is to “ensure that the public receives fair and independent administrative hearings.”
Responsibility:
OAH understands its responsibility to create a system that is efficient and cost effective. OAH
statistics in FY 2013 indicate agency acceptance of Administrative Law Judge Decisions without
modification was 85.22%. Agency acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
without modification was 90.60%. Rehearings (0.81%) and Appeals (1.13%) were rare. Evaluations by participants continue to indicate that Administrative Law Judges and OAH were rated
excellent or good in 92.51% of all responses.
Integrity:
OAH takes its statutory mandate to provide fair, impartial and independent hearings seriously.
Although part of the executive branch, together with its client agencies, OAH maintains a conscious detachment from political issues and the missions of those agencies. Procedures,
rulings, and case assignments are at all times kept free of outside pressures to ensure that the
parties can be assured that hearings are impartial and independent.
Commitment:
OAH views commitment as a willingness to advance its mission, including improving the quality
of decision-writing. While the Administrative Law Judges must render decisions according to the
evidence before them and using their independent judgment, OAH requires that Administrative
Law Judges review all decisions that have been modified or rejected by an agency in order to
encourage them to identify any possible incorrect citations or other areas where quality can be
improved. This commitment is in furtherance of the duty of OAH to provide continuing education
to its Administrative Law Judges.
Efficiency:
Through careful case management the completion rate for cases in FY 2013 was 101%.

1

II. Continued Development of the Office
1. Certifications in ROC Cases
In FY 2013, the Registrar of Contractors (ROC) determined to make greater use of the certification process provided in A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(D) in order to streamline its process. OAH agreed
to modify its certification language to include the effective date and the resulting applicable
rehearing and appeal time limits in order to eliminate the need for a post-certification final order
by the ROC. The modification had no cost, but greatly accelerates the ROC process.

2. Entry of ROC Final Orders
ROC and OAH entered into an Intragovernmental Service Agreement whereby OAH Administrative Law Judges enter ROC’s final order incident to vacating a matter. This agreement has
virtually no cost, but greatly accelerates the ROC process.

3. Automation in Exhibit Indexing in Web-Based Dockets
All exhibits submitted in OAH’s web-based electronic dockets are now indexed automatically,
relieving parties of the need to create index files in html. This automation also allows the rapid
creation of electronic appeals records for future planned submission to Superior Court.

4. Implementation of Personnel Reform
OAH has implemented measures to conform to personnel reform pursuant to Laws 2012,
Chapter 321.

5. Consultation with Superior Court Regarding Submission of Electronic Appeals Records
OAH continues to consult with the Maricopa County Superior Court regarding the technical and
legal feasibility of transferring OAH’s appeal records in electronic form.

6. Five-Year Rule Review
OAH completed its third five-year rule review pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1056.

7. Proposed Rulemaking
Prior to July 1, 2013, A.R.S. § 12-904(A) provided for judicial review of an administrative decision
by the filing of a complaint with the Superior Court. A.R.S. § 12-904(B) provides that a party file
a notice of the action with OAH, and that OAH thereupon transmit the record. In furtherance of
A.R.S. § 12-904(A) and (B), A.A.C. R2-19-122 directed parties to file a copy of the complaint
filed with the Superior Court with OAH within 10 days of the filing of the complaint. Effective July
1, 2013, A.R.S. § 12-904 substituted “notice of appeal” for “complaint.” OAH proposes to amend
A.A.C. R2-19-122(A) to substitute “notice of appeal” for “complaint” to conform to the statutory
change. OAH also proposes to distinguish an appeal resulting from an administrative hearing
held before OAH from that of an agency, board or commission acting as an administrative law
judge. Additionally, OAH proposes to amend A.A.C. R2-19-122(B) to distinguish a transcript of
an appeal resulting from an administrative hearing held before OAH from that of an agency,
board or commission acting as an administrative law judge.

2

III. Summary of Agency Use of OAH Services
1.

Case Management

a. Breakdown of Cases Filed by Agency (FY 2013):
7,596 cases were filed with OAH in FY 2013. The distribution among the agencies, boards,
commissions, or political subdivisions (Agencies) are as follows (in descending order by number
of cases filed):
........................................................................................................................................................
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System - 19
Registrar of Contractors
Department of Weights and Measures
Department of Health Services
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Real Estate
Department of Education - Special Ed
Arizona Department of Revenue
State Board of Nursing
Department of Insurance
State Board of Accountancy
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety - H/C
Department of Economic Security
Department of Public Safety - Criminal History Records
Department of Environmental Quality
Board of Appraisal
Arizona State Retirement System
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Arizona Medical Board
Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Department of Administration
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
State Board for Charter Schools
Board of Technical Registration
Liquor Licenses and Control
Department of Gaming
Department of Water Resources
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Arizona Department of Transportation
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Pinal County Elections Department
State Board of Cosmetology
Board of Dental Examiners
Secretary of State
Board of Psychologist Examiners
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
Office of Pest Management
Arizona Commerce Authority

3

5,647
394
389
354
188
168
82
53
50
44
23
19
17
15
15
14
14
12
9
8
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1

Department of Racing
State Land Department
Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners In Medicine and Surgery
Arizona State Department of Housing
Department of Education
Maricopa County Procurement
Palominas Fire District
Pinetop Fire District
Radiation Regulatory Agency
Arizona Lottery
Office of the Attorney General
Rio Rico Fire District
Department of Public Safety - Concealed Weapons Permit Unit
Secretary of State - HAVA

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Total

7,596

b. Number of Cases Concluded Versus Cases Filed:
In FY 2013, the conclusion rate (defined as cases concluded divided by new cases filed)
was 101.49%.

Cases

Comparison of Cases Filed v. Cases Concluded
7720
7700
7680
7660
7640
7620
7600
7580
7560
7540
7520

7,709
Cases Concluded
Cases Filed
(Docketed)
7,596

4

The following diagram illustrates the proportion of cases that proceeded to full hearing:

Disposition of Concluded Cases FY 2013

Vacated by Agency
15%

Hearings
29%

Vacated by ALJ
56%

c. Timeline of Case Management:
A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(A) and § 41-1092.08(A) and (B) contemplate a rigorous timeline to expedite
hearings and final agency actions. “Appealable agency actions” (defined as actions taken by an
agency without a prior hearing) are required to be set for hearing within 60 days of a request by a
party. “Contested cases” (defined as proposed actions for which a hearing is required) are
required to be set within 60 days of an agency request. Administrative Law Judge Decisions
must be transmitted to the agencies within 20 days of the conclusion of the hearing. The agency
heads are required to take final action within 30 days of receipt. Boards and Commissions
generally must take final action within 5 days of their next scheduled meeting.

5

The following diagram illustrates the average timelines:

Average Days Between Selected Events - Appealable Agency Actions v.
Contested Cases
70.00
58.62

60.00

55.23

50.00
40.00

AAA

30.00

CC

20.00
10.00

13.37

7.94

13.11 10.51

0.96 0.82

0.00
Request for Hearing to
Scheduling

Scheduling to First
Hearing Date

Conclusion of Hearing to ALJ Decision to Agency
ALJ Decision
Action

d. Incidence of Continuance:
A single continuance in FY 2013 added an average of 57.57 days to the total length of a case.
Although 81.77% of all continuance requests were granted in FY 2013, OAH has developed a
well-deserved reputation for discouraging “convenience” continuances in favor of those based on
“good cause.” This is especially important because of the decrease in the number of Administrative Law Judges due to budget constraints. The frequency of continuances, defined as the
number of continuances granted (888*) divided by the total number of cases first scheduled
(7,596), was 11.7%. The ratio of first hearing settings (7,315) to continued settings on the
calendar (888*) was 1 to 0.12.
(*compare fig. 1, page 7 and fig. 2, page 8)

6

The following diagram illustrates the source of continuances:

Continuance upon motion
of non-agency party
52%

Continuance upon mot ion
of agency
48%

The following chart is a breakdown of cases actually set for a continued hearing date on the FY
2013 calendar and their sources, by agency. (Note: the numbers in fig. 1, below, differ from
those in fig. 2, page 8, because a motion for continuance granted in one fiscal year may result in
the continued date being set in the following fiscal year.)
........................................................................................................................................................
fig. 1
AGENCY

Continued Motion by nonagency party

Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
Arizona Department of Revenue
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
Arizona Medical Board
Arizona State Retirement System
Board of Appraisal
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Board of Dental Examiners
Board of Psychologist Examiners
Department of Administration
Department of Economic Security
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Education - Special Ed
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety - H/C
Department of Health Services
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety - Criminal History Records

7

2
9
234
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
4
39
61
2
6
65
10
3

Continued Motion by
agency party
522
1
1
13
6
1
15
3
-

Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Department of Real Estate
Department of Weights and Measures
Department of Water Resources
Drexel Heights Fire District
Liquor Licenses and Control
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
Palominas Fire District
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Pinal County Elections Department
Registrar of Contractors
Secretary of State
State Board of Cosmetology
State Board for Charter Schools
State Board of Nursing
State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind
Water Quality Appeals Board

Total

9
1
1
2
2
2
148
1
2
4
1
3

2
1
5
4
1
4
1
2
-

623

582

The following chart reflects the number of motions to continue that were entertained in FY 2013 and the
percentage granted:

........................................................................................................................................................
fig. 2
AGENCY

Continuance Continuance Total Motions
Granted
Denied

Arizona Department of Revenue
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
Arizona Medical Board
Board of Technical Registration
Arizona State Retirement System
Board of Appraisal
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Board of Psychologist Examiners
Department of Administration
Department of Economic Security
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Education - Special Ed
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Department of Fire, Building and Life - H/C
Department of Health Services
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety - CHR
Department of Public Safety - ST
Department of Real Estate
Department of Weights and Measures
Drexel Heights Fire District

17
460
5
0
4
4
4
1
2
5
40
51
4
0
8
91
9
3
2
16
2
2

4
109
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
4
0
1
1
10
6
0
0
2
0
0

8

21
569
6
1
4
4
4
1
2
6
47
55
4
1
9
101
15
3
2
18
2
2

% Granted

81
81
83
0
100
100
100
100
100
83
85
93
100
0
89
90
60
100
100
89
100
100

Liquor Licenses and Control
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
Office of Pest Management
Palominas Fire District
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Pinal County Elections Department
Registrar of Contractors
Secretary of State
State Board for Charter Schools
State Board of Accountancy
State Board of Nursing

1
2
0
1
4
2
138
3
1
0
6

0
0
1
0
0
0
43
0
2
1
4

1
2
1
1
4
2
181
3
3
1
10

100
100
0
100
100
100
76
100
33
0
60

Total

888

252

1,086

81.77%

2. Evaluation
a. Results of Public Evaluation:
Since November 1996, OAH has administered an evaluation procedure. A copy of the evaluation is provided
to all participants before the hearing. The evaluation form is described in a video played before each
hearing, or is otherwise addressed by the Administrative Law Judge. The results are not disclosed to the
Administrative Law Judge. Hearing participants place completed evaluations in locked boxes located near
the hearing rooms.

Those responding are asked to rate the following categories, on a scale of excellent, good, satisfactory, or
poor:

1. Attentiveness of the Administrative Law Judge
2. Effectiveness in explaining the hearing process
3. Administrative Law Judge’s use of clear and neutral language
4. Impartiality
5. Effectiveness in dealing with the issues of the case
6. Sufficient space
7. Freedom from distractions
8. Questions responded to promptly and completely
9. Treated courteously
The results indicate that satisfaction is high among all groups, with those responding rating OAH
excellent to good in 92.51% to 97.47% of responses.

9

All Responses FY 2013
120.00%
95.66%
95.65%

97.47%

100.00%

95.06%

96.49%

95.41%

94.53%

92.51%

93.82%

80.00%

Excellent/Good
Average

60.00%

Poor

40.00%

20.00%
1.27%

2.81%

3.06%

3.65%

1.28%

1.82%

1.53%

1.27%

2.86%

5.68%

2.16%

4.57%

2.70%

1.81%

2.43%

1.61%

0.81%

2.08%

0.00%
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

QUESTIONS

An analysis of the unrepresented parties indicates that even among the most vunerable group, OAH is seen
to be functioning extremely well.

U n re p re s e n te d R e s p o n s e s
2 00
1 80
1 60
1 40
1 20
1 00
80
60
40
20
0

E x c elle nt
G o od
A ve ra g e

9
n

8
st
io
Q
ue

st
io

n
Q
ue

Q
ue

st
io

st
io

10

n

7

6
n

5
Q
ue

st
io
Q
ue

st
io

n

4
n

3
n
Q
ue

st
io
Q
ue

st
io
Q
ue

Q
ue

st
io

n

n

1

2

P oor

b. Incidence of Rehearing and Appeal:
Rehearings are permitted pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09 under certain conditions. In FY 2013,
the rehearing rate (defined as rehearings scheduled divided by cases heard) was 0.81%.
Appeals to Superior Court are provided for pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H). In FY 2013, the
judicial appeal rate (defined as judicial appeals taken divided by cases decided on the merits)
was 1.13%. As reflected in the following diagram, rehearings and judicial appeals in FY 2013
were relatively rare.

Judicial Appeals and Rehearings FY 2013

Rehearings
Appeals

12

10
10

8
8

6

4
4

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

A r zi on a Healt h Car e Cost

Depar t men t of E con omic

Con t ain men t Syst em

Secur ti y- CPS

0
0

0
Depar t men t of En vir on men t al Depar t men t of Fir e B uid
ln
i g an d Depar t men t of Healt h S er vic es
Qualti y

Depar t men t of RealEst at e

Lif e Saf et y

Depar t men t of Weight s an d
M easur es

11

Radiat o
i n Regulat or y

Regis t r ar of Con t r act or s

SpecialE ducat o
in

IV. Acceptance of Administrative Law Judge Decisions
by Agencies
1. Agency Action
Agency acceptance of the Administrative Law Judge Decisions is high. 85.22% of all decisions
acted upon by the agencies were accepted without modification. Agency acceptance was
90.6% if viewed from the vantage point of acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, the core function of the Administrative Law Judge. 42.23% of modifications made by the
agencies were in the Recommended Order (penalty portion).

Amended
Findings/ Conc lusions of
Law only

Reject ed
2.04%

7.36%

Amended Order only
5.38%

Ac cept ed wit hout
Modif icat ion
85.22%

The following chart reports the number of cases in the various categories of agency response.

1,600

1,378
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400

87

200

119
33

0
Accepted without Modi f ication

Amended Or der only

Amended Fi ndi ngs/ Conclusions of Law only

12

Rejected

The following chart reports the breakdown of agency response by agency. This list further
illustrates that amendments and rejections are few relative to the decisions accepted.
........................................................................................................................................................
Accept

Amend
Order

Amend
Findings

Reject

Accountancy Board
AHCCCS
Board for Charter Schools
Board of Cosmetology
Chiropractic Examiners
Dental Examiners
Department of Administration
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Dept.of Fire,Bldg, Life Safety
Department of Housing
Department of Water Resources
DES-APS
DES-CPS
DPS- Bus
DPS-Crim. History Rec.
Financial Institutions
Gaming
Health Services
Insurance
Land
Liquor Licenses
Lottery
Medical Board
Notary
Nursing
Office of Pest Management
Osteopathic Examiners
Psychologist Examiners
Racing
Radiation Regulatory
Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
State Retirement
Water Quality Appeals Board
Weights and Measures

3
970
1
2
1
2
8
4
64
4
10
1
1
125
4
1
3
1
2
1
16
1
1
1
1
27
112
8
3
-

6
14
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
5
48
-

1
46
1
14
29
1
1
1
24
1

19
1
4
4
1
1
2
1

Total

1,378

87

119

33

13

Total

10
1,049
1
2
2
1
1
4
9
1
1
4
83
4
10
1
3
161
6
1
3
1
4
1
22
1
1
1
1
1
28
186
8
3
2

1,617

In FY 2013, Administrative Law Judges rendered decisions that were contrary in whole or contrary
in part to agencies’ original positions in 7.30% of cases.

Recommendations Contrary to Original Agency Action FY 2013

ALJ Recommendation
Contrary in Whole or in
Part
7.30%

ALJ Recommendation
Aff irms
92.70%

Agency acceptance of contrary decisions was high at 93.20%.

Agency Response to Contrary Recommendations FY 2013
70

65

60

Cases

50
40
30
20

16

15

7

10
0
Agency Accepts
Agency Amends Findings Agency Amends Order
Contrary
Accepts Order 14.56%
Accepts Findings of
Recommendation 63.11%
Fact/Law 15.53%

14

Agency Rejects Contrary
Recommendation 6.80%

The following chart reports the breakdown of agency responses to contrary decisions.
........................................................................................................................................................
Client

Accepted

Amended
Order

Amended
Findings

Rejected Certified

Total

Accountancy Board
Department of Housing
AHCCCS
Board of Appraisal
DPS-Bus
DPS-Crim. History Rec.
DES-CPS
Dental Board
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Dept. of Health Services
Weights and Measures
Gaming
Dept. of Insurance
Liquor Licenses
Nursing Board
Radiation Regulatory
Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
Psychologist Examiners.

31
1
1
3
15
1
1
1
5
-

1
5
1
1
3
2
1
1
-

10
4
1
1
-

1
2
1
1
1
1

1
1
3
1
-

1
1
49
1
2
3
20
1
3
1
5
3
1
1
2
1
6
1
1

Total

59

15

16

7

6

103

2. Agency Inaction With Subsequent OAH Certification of Finality
Beginning August 21, 1998, OAH was required to certify the Administrative Law Judge Decision
as the final administrative decision if OAH had not received the agency, board or commission’s
action accepting, modifying or rejecting the recommended decision within 30 days of transmission. Special rules apply if the board or commission meets monthly or less frequently. A.R.S. §
41-1092.08(D). In FY 2013, 185 Administrative Law Judge Decisions were certified by OAH as
final administrative decisions.
Agency

Certified

Registrar of Contractors
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety - H/C
Board of Appraisal
Department of Weights and Measures
Department of Insurance
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System

15

121
22
11
11
10
2

Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Arizona Commerce Authority
Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
Board of Technical Registration
City of Douglas
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Maricopa County Procurement

2
1
1
1
1
1
1

V. Motions for Change of Administrative Law
Judge Granted Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
A.R.S. § 41-1092.01(C)(9)(b) requires that the OAH report the number of motions for change of
Administrative Law Judge for bias, prejudice, personal interest or lack of necessary expertise which
were filed and the number granted. In FY 2013, 8 motions were filed and one motion was granted.

VI. Violations of A.R.S. § 41-1009
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.01(C)(9)(c), OAH reports that it has no knowledge of violations of
A.R.S. § 41-1009 by any agency.

VII. Recommendations for Changes in the
Administrative Procedures Act
The regulated community has long complained about inconsistent procedures among the
various agencies. The following recommendations point to the areas where uniformity or greater
consistency can be accomplished:

1. Establish uniform standards for appeal rights notice.
Currently there are no standards for how, and with what degree of specificity, appeal
rights to Superior Court should be communicated to parties once the agency has acted.
2. Establish uniform basis for rehearing.
Parties must research the specific rules of each agency, board or commission to determine the bases for rehearing since there is little uniformity. Standardizing and recapitulating possible bases in Title 41 would make the process easier, particularly for the
unrepresented.

16

3. Conform rehearing and appeal rules.
Currently parties have 30 days from service of an agency’s final action, which is presumed after 5 days of mailing to the party’s last known address, to request a rehearing
under A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(A)(1) and (C). However, under A.R.S. § 12-904(A), parties
have 35 days to file an appeal to Superior Court upon service, presumed after 5 days of
mailing to the party’s last known address. Conforming the time limits for requesting
rehearings and filing appeals will simplify the process by eliminating varying time limits for
parties to act on final orders and will allow agencies to frame the effective dates of their
final orders to a single date.

VIII. Recommendation for Changes or
Improvements in Agency Practice with Respect to the
Administrative Procedures Act
Recoupment of Costs for Administrative Hearings:
Billed costs to non-General Fund supported agencies, boards and commissions (ISA agencies),
pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.01(E) and (K), could be recouped by them by extending the statutory authority found in isolated statutes to all such ISA agencies.
An example of statutory authority for recoupment is found in A.R.S. § 32-128(H), which permits
the Board of Technical Registration to recoup certain costs:
H. On its determination that a registrant or a home inspector has violated this
chapter or a rule adopted pursuant to this chapter, the board may assess the
registrant or the home inspector with its reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in conducting the investigation and administrative hearing. All monies collected
pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and
35-147, in the technical registration fund established by section 32-109 and shall
only be used by the board to defray its expenses in connection with disciplinary
investigations and hearings. Notwithstanding section 35-143.01, these monies
may be spent without legislative appropriation.
To avoid any appearance of impropriety by the ISA agencies, such recoupment might be limited
to particular circumstances, such as settlements, cases where the ISA agency prevails before
the independent Administrative Law Judge, or only as incident to disciplinary orders.

17