The Jane Dee Hull Governor OAH Cliff J. Vanell Director Vol. 22 January 2002 www.azoah.com Official Newsletter of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings Helping us help you: www.azoah.com MAKING THE MOST OF THE OAH WEBSITE There are two images that often come to my mind as I think about how people must feel about coming to a hearing. One is the image of my mother sitting alone on the couch in my living room in the very early morning before the sun was up. She was staying at my house in Gilbert, Arizona, visiting from Globe where she lived. She had a small claims matter in a nearby justice court. She had been taken from pillar to post and although she would never say so, I know she was worried. She was expected to present her case before a perfect stranger, in an unfamiliar place with no experience. Even though my mother has been dead for almost ten years, my heart still goes out to her. The other image is of a man I saw at the public library years ago asking the librarian where the Arizona law was. After he was shown the large set of books comprising the Arizona Revised Statutes and after watching him puzzle through the index, I couldn’t help but think what incredible barriers are set up for people who are not lawyers, but who are nonetheless expected to know and obey the law. These two people probably have no idea how they have affected the spirit of the OAH in its formative years. It is to these two people, my mother and that nameless man, that I dedicate our web page. May serving people like them always be a focus of the “quality of life” that we proclaim in our mission statement as being OAH’s reason for existing. The OAH website is designed with the minimum of frills and organized to get people to the right place as quickly as possible. An outline of the homepage can be found on page 2. 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 Judges allow parties to put a name to a face and learn about a judge’s background. Along with links to the Arizona Revised Statutes, Arizona Administrative Code and OAH’s procedural rules, the OAH has included extensive cross referencing to allow non-lawyers to quickly pick up practice pointers and be able to put the law together with a minimum of searching. For example, if a person goes to OAH’s procedural rules, any rule which references another rule will have a link to it, as well as any statute in the Uniform Administrative Hearings Procedures 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. The OAH Portal is an important asset to parties since it allows parties to directly access OAH’s docket to view case settings, rulings, receipt of documents and other information. Parties can also quickly research any important considerations regarding attorney representation. Parties also have the ability to file motions on line and “Website Overview” continued page 3 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 agen- cies began in 1945 with California. The current states having adopted the model, with year of inception are: Arizona (1996), California (1961), Colorado (1976), Florida (1974), Georgia (1995), Illinois (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 (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 Acceptance Rate: ALJ findings of fact and conclusions of law were accepted in 97.54% of all recommended decisions acted upon by the agencies.* ALJ decisions, including recommended orders, were accepted without modification in 94.5% of all recommended decisions acted upon by the agencies. 68.85% of all agency modification was of the order only (i.e. penalty assessed). Continuance: The average length of a first time continuance based on a sample of cases (first hearing setting and first continuance both occurred in the 2nd quarter) was 45.7 days. The frequency of continuance, defined as the number of continuances granted (198) over the total number of cases first scheduled (1804), expressed as a percent, was 10.98%. The ratio of first settings (1641) to continued settings on the calendar (1322) was 1 to 0.806. Appeals to Superior Court: There were 15 appeals filed in Superior Court. 3 appeals involved 1086 consolidated cases; 12 appeals involved separate cases. Dispositions: Hearings conducted: 59.5%; vacated prior to hearing: 37.7%; hearings withdrawn by agency: 2.8%. Rehearings: The rehearing rate was .415%, defined as rehearings scheduled (4) over hearings concluded (965**). Contrary Recommendations and Agency Response: 19.71% of recommendations were contrary to the original agency action where the agency took a position. Agency acceptance of contrary recommendations was 88.32%. Completion Rate: The completion rate was 90.31%, defined as cases completed (1622) over new cases filed (1796). *1% of ALJ recommended decisions were certified as final by the OAH due to agency inaction. ** Cases which were vacated are not included OAH Website Structure at a Glance (underlines indicate links) BACKGROUND OF THE OFFICE Our Mission Statement Our Logo Our Newsletter The Director Views of the Office Link to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) by title. Notices of Hearing provided by agencies will refer to these statutes. The number appearing immediately after the “A.R.S.” refers to the title. RESEARCH YOUR CASE (PORTAL) The OAH portal allows you to research your case by matter number (certain cases will not appear due to confidentiality requirements). FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What is an Administrative Law Judge? What is a hearing like? Do I need a lawyer? How do I know what rules to follow? Will there be a record? Where do I send requests? What if I need a delay? How do I ask the judge to do something? How do I subpoena witnesses? What if I need special accomodations? Are there forms I can use? How can I appeal my decision? ATTORNEY ISSUES See Do I need a lawyer? Rule 31, Rules of the Supreme Court This rule provides exceptions to the general rule regarding attorney representation before the OAH. Rule 33(d), Rules of the Supreme Court - Out of State Attorneys: Application Process to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Note: This on-line application is consistent with the Order of the Supreme Court suspending the amendments to Rule 33(d), as adopted on October 9, 2001.) YOUR ASSIGNED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE You can find a biography and a picture of the assigned judge as well as former judges who are our distinguished alumni. OAH NEWSLETTER Articles from the OAH Newsletter The OAH newsletter is published quarterly. It contains informative articles and statistics as well as practice pointers. RESEARCH PROCEDURES, STATUTES AND RULES AFFECTING YOUR CASE Newsletters in PDF format OAH Procedural Rules Previous Quarter Statistics Performance measures as reported in the OAH Newsletter. Uniform Administrative Hearings Procedures These are statutory provisions establishing the OAH and outlining the appeals process. For specific procedures involving your case, see the OAH Procedural Rules (above). MOTIONS Sample subpoena form Link to Arizona Administrative Code Here you can Compose motions or respond to motions online research the rules promulgated by the agency that may impact your case. page 2 Agency Response to Recommended Decisions October 1 - December 31, 2001 1400 1347 ALJ decision certified as final upon agency inaction 1% Agency amends recommended order only 2.91% 1600 Agency amends findings of facts/conclusions of law only 1.32% 1200 1000 800 600 Agency accepts w ithout modification 93.41% 400 200 19 42 16 18 Agency amends findings of facts/conclusions of law only Agency amends recommended order only Agency rejects the recommended decision ALJ Decision Certified as Final Upon Agency Inaction 0 Agency accepts w ithout modification Average Time Between Selected Events - Appealable Agency Actions v. Contested Cases*, October 1 - December 31, 2001 “Website Overview” 60 continued from page 1 57.07 50.04 50 40 download sample subpoena forms. Ultimately the best designers of a website are those that use it. The OAH welcomes any suggestions and can be reached by e-mail at oah@azoah.com. We have included a link to comments and questions on the website to make that process easier. Although the OAH welcomes direct contact to answer questions, we suggest that parties try www.azoah.com first. The OAH website can truly be a one-stop way to learn about procedures, get valuable practice pointers, research your case, find statutes and agency rules that affect your case. Days cases Agency rejects the recommended decision 1.11% 30 20 7.72 10 1.41 10.43 11.1 13.13 AAA CC 3.01 0 Request for Hearing to Scheduling Scheduling to First Hearing Date Conclusion of Hearing ALJ Decision to Agency to ALJ Decision 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. 1796 Cases Filed October 1, 2001 - December 31, 2001 2nd Q Accountancy 5 Acupuncture Board 0 ADA 0 Administration 2 Admin. Parking 22 Agriculture 0 Ag. Emply. Rel. Bd. 0 AHCCCS 899 Alternative Fuel 1 Appraisal 3 AZ Commission on the Arts 0 Attorney General 0 Arizona Works 0 Banking 6 Behavioral Health Ex. 5 Building/Fire Safety 61 Charter Schools 0 Chiropractic 2 Clean Elections 0 Community Colleges 0 FY 2002 6 0 0 6 72 2 0 2910 6 3 0 3 0 16 12 125 0 3 0 0 2nd Q FY 2002 2nd Q FY 2002 Cosmetology Dental Economic Security Economic Security-CPS Education Environ. Quality Funeral Gaming Health Services Insurance Land Liquor Lottery Maricopa Cty. Housing Medical Examiners Naturopathic Nursing Nursing Care Admin Osteopathic Parks page 3 11 8 0 63 0 28 0 3 72 47 2 19 0 1 3 0 8 1 0 0 19 12 0 114 2 42 0 3 118 69 5 36 0 2 5 0 19 1 0 0 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 Water Qual. App. Bd. Water Resources Weights and Measures 3 11 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 6 0 408 26 28 0 0 0 0 5 31 5 11 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 10 0 819 56 40 0 0 3 0 10 57 Evaluations of OAH Services All Responses 2nd Quarter Unrepresented Responses 2nd Quarter 350 700 300 600 250 Excellent 500 Excellent 200 Good 400 Good 150 Average 300 Average 100 Poor 200 Poor 0 Q ue Q ue Q ue Q st io n ue 1 st io n Q ue 2 st io n Q ue 3 st io n Q ue 4 st i o Q ue n 5 st i Q on ue 6 st io n Q ue 7 st io n Q ue 8 st io n 9 100 0 st io n 1 st i Q on ue 2 st i Q on ue 3 st io n Q ue 4 st Q ion ue 5 st i Q on ue 6 st io n Q ue 7 st io n Q ue 8 st io n 9 50 Questions: 1. Attentiveness of ALJ 2. Effectiveness in explaining the hearing process 3. ALJ’s use of clear and neutral language 4. Impartiality 5. Effectiveness in dealing with the issues of the case 6. Sufficient space 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. 7. Freedom from distractions 8. Questions responded to promptly and completely 9. Treated courteously Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 This publication is available in alternative formats. The OAH is an equal opportunity employer.