The Janet Napolitano Governor OAH Cliff J. Vanell Director Vol. 30 February 2004 www.azoah.com Official Newsletter of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings Full, Fair, Impartial, Independent and Prompt Cliff J. Vanell, Director In the Second Century, the Roman Emperor Hadrian was passing through a town in the midst of a campaign to secure the northern border from the unremitting attacks of the barbarian tribes. An old woman called to him to hear a dispute. Not surprisingly, given the situation, he replied to her that he was too busy. Startling, however, was the old woman’s response: “Then you are too busy to be Emperor.” To the credit of the Emperor, or perhaps as an illustration of the essential need to be publicly seen to do justice, he stopped and heard the dispute. In December 2001, I had the pleasure of attending a presentation by Former Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket at the Annual Convention of Central Panel Directors. He cited studies showing that Americans increasingly have the sense that justice is beyond their means because access to the courts had become too expensive and time-consuming. It can literally take years for a dispute to make its way through the civil process. As a result, a dangerous corrosive effect is being produced, estranging the citizenry from the government. To the extent that we are a government of fellow citizens, the effect can only be a debilitating cynicism. Given these studies, has a call not been sounded in 21st Century America, akin to the old Roman woman’s call to the Emperor Hadrian? Do we risk much in appearing to be too busy, too expensive, too inaccessible in addressing disputes? In creating the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with its fast-track procedures and the emphasis on accessibility, the Arizona Legislature has responded to that call in the administrative arena. Full and Fair: The OAH process is designed to maximize accessibility. Individuals are not required to be represented by counsel and procedures are streamlined allowing the unrepresented to be effective in presenting their cases. The OAH website (www.azoah.com) is designed with a minimum of frills and organized to allow visitors to find information as quickly as possible. The background of the OAH, including its mission statement, logo, management philosophy and views of the hearing rooms give parties a sense of the “feel” of the OAH. The biographies of the Administrative Law Continued page 2 The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) began operations on January 1, 1996. Administrative Hearings previously provided by regulatory agencies (except those specifically exempted) are now transferred to the OAH for independent proceedings. Our statutory mandate is to “ensure that the public receives fair and independent administrative hearings.” The process of unifying the administrative hearings function in OAH-style agencies began in 1945 with California. The current states or cities having adopted the model, with year of inception are: Arizona (1996); California (1961); Colorado (1976); Florida (1974); Georgia (1995); Chicago (1997); Iowa (1986); Kansas (1998); Louisiana (1996); Maine (1992); Maryland (1990); Massachusetts (1974); Michigan (1996); Minnesota (1976); Missouri (1965); New Jersey (1979); New York City (1979); North Carolina (1986); North Dakota (1991); Oregon (1999); South Carolina (1994); South Dakota (1994); Tennessee (1975); Texas (1991); Washington D.C. (1999); Washington (1981); Wisconsin (1978); and Wyoming (1987). Mission Statement: We will contribute to the quality of life in the State of Arizona by fairly and impartially hearing the contested matters of our fellow citizens arising out of state regulation. 2nd Quarter Statistics At A Glance references another rule will have a link to it, as well as any statute in the Uniform Administrative Hearings Procedures Act that deals with the same issue. Likewise, any reference in articles dealing with practice pointers or any response to a frequently asked question that refers to any rule or statute will have links to them. Law Judges. The OAH takes its statutory mandate to provide fair, impartial and independent hearings seriously. Although part of the Executive branch, the OAH maintains a conscious detachment from political issues and the missions of the other Executive agencies. Procedures, rulings, and case assignments are at all times kept free of outside pressures to ensure the parties that hearings are impartial and independent. The OAH Portal found on the OAH website is an Continuance: important asset to parties The average length of a first time continuance based on a since it allows parties to sample of cases (first hearing setting and first continuance both occurred in the 2nd quarter) was 37.61 days. The frequency of directly access OAH’s continuance, defined as the number of continuances granted docket to view case set(183) over the total number of cases first scheduled (1172), expressed as a percent, was 16.38%. The ratio of first settings tings, rulings, receipt of (1695) to continued settings on the calendar (153) was 1 to documents and other 0.09 information. Other than in Dispositions: confidential cases, parties Hearings conducted: 66.3%; vacated prior to hearing: 32.4%; hearings withdrawn by the agency: 1.4%. can not only research their cases on-line, they can Contrary Recommendations and Agency Response: 20% of listen to the audio record of Administrative Law Judge Decisions were contrary to the original agency action where the agency took a position. their hearings over the Agency acceptance of contrary Administrative Law Judge internet within 24 hours of Decisions was 84.0%. *2.27% of Administrative Law Judge Decisions were certified as final by the hearing. Full text the OAH due to agency inaction or were rendered moot by settlement. ** Cases which were vacated or which settled on the day of hearing are searching will be added to not included. the OAH website that will allow parties to review other decisions similar to their own. In Continued from page 1 order to aid in the preparation for a hearing, videostreaming will soon Judges allow parties to put a name permit parties to watch and listen to to a face and learn about a judge’s a sample hearing. background. There are also articles written by the Administrative Law The hearing rooms are designed to Judges designed to educate the be pleasant and nonthreatening public and parties about the hearing with attractive art and comfortable process. Along with links to the furnishings. Parties are escorted to Arizona Revised Statutes, Arizona the hearing room and encouraged Administrative Code and OAH’s to fill out questionnaires commentprocedural rules, the website ing on the process, including includes extensive cross referencwhether they were treated courteing to allow non-lawyers to quickly ously and whether the judge was pick up practice pointers and be impartial and effective in the case. able to put the law together with a minimum of searching. For exImpartial and Independent: ample, if a person goes to OAH’s The OAH is committed to the procedural rules, any rule which development of its Administrative While the Administrative Law Judges must render decisions according to the evidence before them and use their independent judgment, the OAH now requires that Administrative Law Judges review all decisions which have been modified or rejected by an agency in order to encourage them to identify any possible miscites or other areas where quality can be improved. This commitment is in furtherance of the duty of the OAH to provide continuing education to its Administrative Law Judges. Acceptance Rate: ALJ findings of fact and conclusions of law were accepted in 88.56% of all Administrative Law Judge Decisions acted upon by the agencies.* ALJ Decisions, including orders, were accepted without modification in 84.58% of all Administrative Law Judge Decisions acted upon by the agencies. 31.31% of all agency modification was of the order only (i.e. penalty assessed). Appeals to Superior Court: There were 15 appeals filed in Superior Court. Rehearings: The rehearing rate was 0.12%, defined as rehearings scheduled (1) over hearings concluded (797).** Completion Rate: The completion rate was 93.95%, defined as cases completed (1693) over new cases filed (1802). page 2 Prompt Hearings at the OAH are to be set within 60 days of a request. Decisions must be issued by the Administrative Law Judges within 20 days of the conclusion of a hearing. Agencies must act with 30 days of the receipt of the Administrative Law Judge’s decisions or the decision becomes final. Through adherence to these statutory mandates and careful case management, cases completed in a year equal the number of cases filed with the OAH. The lack of case backlog assures that parties are given hearings in a reasonable timeframe. A Promise The OAH mission statement summarizes our vision as “contributing to the quality of life in the State of Arizona.” Mindful of the critique of Administrative Law Judge Decision moot 0.13% Agency Response to Administrative Law Judge Decisions October 1 - December 31, 2003 700 Administrative Law Judge Decision certified as final upon agency inaction 2.14% Agency rejects the Administrative Law Judge Decision 2.64% 658 Agency amends order only 3.89% 600 500 400 cases Agency amends findings of facts/conclusions of law only 8.54% Agency accepts without modification 82.66% 300 200 100 68 31 21 Agency amends order only Agency rejects the Administrative Law Judge Decision 1 17 0 Agency accepts without Agency amends findings modification of facts/conclusions of law only Administrative Law Judge Decision moot Average Time Between Selected Events - Appealable Agency Actions v. Contested Cases*, October 1 December 31, 2003 Administrative Law Judge Decision certified as final upon agency inaction 60.00 49.39 50.00 51.29 Days 40.00 the old Roman woman, that means that we must never be too busy or distracted to give each party the attention necessary to foster confidence in our system of justice. As the OAH begins its ninth year of service, we again pledge our best efforts in responding to the call of parties who come before us to be fully, fairly, impartially and promptly heard. 30.00 16.86 20.00 AAA CC 11.30 11.07 10.00 0.99 2.39 0.00 Request for Hearing to Scheduling Scheduling to First Hearing Date Conclusion of Hearing to ALJ Decision ALJ Decision to Agency Action *Note: Appealable Agency Actions are agency actions taken before an opportunity for a hearing. A typical example would be the denial of a license. A party is entitled to a hearing before the OAH before the action becomes final. Contested Cases involve actions yet to be determined by an agency. An example would be proposed discipline on a professional license with the possibility of suspension or revocation. Parties are entitled to a hearing before the OAH prior to the agency acting. 1693 Cases Filed October 1, 2003 - December 31, 2003 Accountancy Acupuncture Board Administration Admin. Parking Agriculture Ag. Emply. Rel. Bd. AHCCCS Alternative Fuel Appraisal Arizona Trial Courts Attorney General Arizona Works Athletic Board Banking Behavioral Health Ex. Building/Fire Safety Charter Schools Chiropractic Clean Elections Community Colleges Cosmetology 17.41 2nd Q FY 2004 2nd Q FY 2004 3 0 1 25 0 0 675 0 3 0 0 0 0 16 3 23 3 1 0 0 5 7 0 4 44 0 0 1284 0 4 0 2 0 0 42 3 46 3 2 0 0 6 Dental 3 Economic Security 0 Economic Security-CPS 46 Education 2 Environ. Quality 43 Fingerprinting 164 Funeral 0 Gaming 4 Health Services 124 Insurance 26 Land 4 Liquor 10 Lottery 0 Maricopa Cty. Housing 0 Medical Board 7 Medical Radiologic 4 Naturopathic 0 Nursing 13 Nursing Care Admin. 2 Occupation Therapy 0 Osteopathic 0 7 0 105 4 94 327 0 7 212 41 4 26 0 0 14 4 0 30 2 0 0 page 3 2nd Q FY 2004 Parks Peace Ofc. Standards Pest Control Physical Therapy Podiatry Psychologist Examiners Public Safety - CW Public Safety - Trans Public Safety - Adult CC Pvt. Post. Ed. Racing Radiation Regulatory Registrar of Contr. Real Estate Revenue School - Deaf & Blind Secretary of State Technical Registration Veterinary Board Water Qual. App. Bd. Water Resources Weights and Measures 0 1 14 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 464 18 27 0 7 0 0 0 35 21 0 3 16 2 0 0 2 6 0 26 2 0 837 42 33 1 15 0 0 0 36 54 Evaluations of OAH Services Note: The four major groups of those who responded are: represented private party; unrepresented private party; counsel for a private party; and counsel for the agency. The evaluations are filled out immediately after the hearing, and the evaluations are not disclosed to the ALJ involved. The are used by management to improve the OAH process and do not affect the decisions issued. All Responses 2nd Quarter Unrepresented Responses 2nd Quarter 600 300 500 250 200 Average 100 Good 300 Good 150 Excellent 400 Excellent Average Poor 200 Poor 100 50 n 9 8 st io ue Q ue Q Q ue st io st io n n 7 6 5 n n st io ue Q Q ue st io n 3 Q ue Q ue st io st io n 2 1 n n ue st io st io Q Q Q ue ue st io n Q 1 ue st io n Q 2 ue st io n Q 3 ue st io n Q 4 ue st io n Q 5 ue st io n Q 6 ue st io n Q 7 ue st io n Q 8 ue st io n 9 4 0 0 All Responses FY 2004 To Date (July 1, 2003 - December 31, 2003) 120.00% RESPONSES IN % 100.00% 97.65% 97.13% 97.31% 95.61% 95.69% 96.30% 96.80% 95.86% 97.27% 80.00% EXCELLENT/GOOD 60.00% AVERAGE POOR 40.00% 20.00% 1.54% 0.81% 1.95% 0.93% 1.94% 0.74% 2.70% 1.69% 3.04% 1.27% 3.03% 0.67% 3.00% 0.19% 3.37% 0.77% 2.31% 0.42% 0.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 QUESTIONS Questions: 5. Effectiveness in dealing with the issues of the case 1. Attentiveness of ALJ 6. Sufficient space 2. Effectiveness in explaining the hearing process 7. Freedom from distractions 3. ALJ’s use of clear and neutral language 8. Questions responded to promptly and completely 4. Impartiality 9. Treated courteously This publication is available in alternative formats. The OAH is an equal opportunity employer.