The Office of Administrative
Hearings
The Thirteenth Annual Report
to
Governor Janet Napolitano
Senator Timothy S. Bee, President of the Senate
Representative James P. Weiers, 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
October 30, 2008

17

Contents
I. Introduction and Overview................................................................................. 1
II. Continued Development of the Office...............................................................
1. Developing Electronic Filing ...................................................................
2. Business Continuity.................................................................................
3. Professional Development ......................................................................
4. Security Cameras.....................................................................................
5. Quality Control and Procedural Efficiency ............................................

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 Filed Versus Cases Concluded .............................. 4
c. Timeline of Case Management ........................................................... 5
d. Incidence of Continuance.................................................................... 6
2. Evaluation ................................................................................................. 8
a. Results of Public Evaluation ................................................................. 8
b. Incidence of Rehearing and Appeal .................................................... 10
IV. Acceptance of Administrative Law Judge Decisions by Agencies.............. 10
1. Agency Action ........................................................................................ 10
2. Agency Inaction With Subsequent Certification of Finality................ 14
V. Motions for Change of Administrative Law Judge Granted Pursuant to
A.R.S. § 41-1092.07........................................................................................... 15
VI. Violations of A.R.S. § 41-1009 ......................................................................... 15
VII. Recommendations for Changes in the Administrative Procedures Act ..... 15
1. Right to settlement conferences in “contested cases” .................... 15
2. Establish uniform standards for appeal rights notice. ....................... 15
3. Establish uniform basis for rehearing.................................................. 16
4. Conform rehearing and appeal rules.................................................... 16
VIII. Recommendation for Changes or Improvements in Agency Practice
with Respect to the Administrative Procedures Act................................... 16
Recoupment of Costs for Administrative Hearings ................................. 16

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 the OAH for independent proceedings. There are two OAH locations,
Phoenix and Tucson, with 31 full-time positions, including the Director, the Office Manager, 19
Administrative Law Judges, and 10 support staff. In addition to conducting hearings in Phoenix and
Tucson, the OAH videoconferences Registrar of Contractors hearings in Flagstaff, Kingman, Lake
Havasu City, Prescott, Show Low, Sierra Vista, and Yuma. Our statutory mandate is to “ensure that
the public receives fair and independent administrative hearings.”
Responsibility:
The OAH understands its responsibility to create a system that is efficient and cost effective.
The OAH statistics in FY 2008 indicate agency acceptance of Administrative Law Judge Decisions without modification was 86.64%. Agency acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law without modification was 92.6%. Rehearings (1.58%) and Appeals (2.15%) were
rare. Evaluations by participants continue to indicate that Administrative Law Judges and the
OAH were rated excellent or good in 95% of all responses.
Integrity:
The OAH takes its statutory mandate to provide fair, impartial and independent hearings seriously. Although part of the executive branch, together with its client agencies, the 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:
The 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, the OAH now 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 miscitations 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.
Efficiency:
Through careful case management, the OAH enjoys no backlog. The completion rate for cases
in FY 2008 was 97.71%.

1

II. Continued Development of the Office
1. Developing Electronic Filing
In FY 2007, the OAH generated a totally paperless case file in a large water adjudication involving multiple interested persons and which had great statewide and interstate interest. All filings
were required to be electronic and all orders were issued via posting to a webpage. Posting of
filings and orders to the webpage was notice to all parties. The process relied on time-consuming manual rewriting of the html file for Internet posting and manual generation of advisory email. Because of effectiveness of this paperless record in managing such a large volume of
documents, the OAH decided to streamline and fully automate the process to be used in similar
cases. Parties now can submit documents and exhibits to an assigned internet web address.
Their submissions are automatically posted to the Internet and an e-mail sent to all other parties.

2. Business Continuity
The OAH has completed its latest phase of business continuity management. The Phoenix
database is fully restorable, within an 8 hour window of real time, through its Tucson servers. A
mirrored OAH will be fully operational within 4 hours of a disaster, including its website and
portal.

3. Professional Development
Administrative Law Judges continue to receive professional education in the subject matter of
agencies as well as skills development.
Administrative Law Judge Dan Martin was appointed to the Superior Court.

4. Security Cameras
Security cameras with two way audio have been installed in all hearing rooms.

5. Quality Control and Procedural Efficiency
The OAH has refined its internal audits to daily monitor paper flow, responsiveness to motions
and other performance measures.

2

III. Summary of Agency Use of OAH Services
1.

Case Management

a. Breakdown of Cases Filed by Agency (FY 2008):
7,561 cases were filed with the OAH in FY 2008. 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
Registrar of Contractors
Department of Weights and Measures
Department of Health Services
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Racing
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Insurance
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
State Board of Nursing
Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
Liquor Licenses and Control
Department of Education - Special Ed
Department of Real Estate
Department of Revenue
Arizona Medical Board
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety - H/C
Board of Technical Registration
Board of Appraisal
Department of Economic Security
Medical Radiologic Technology Board of Examiners
Arizona State Retirement System
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Pharmacy Board
Secretary of State
State Board of Accountancy
Arizona Department of Commerce
Board of Dental Examiners
Department of Gaming
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Arizona Lottery
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Department of Agriculture
Department of Public Safety - Concealed Weapons Permit Unit
State Board for Charter Schools
State Board for Private Postsecondary Education
Board of Nursing Care Institution Administrators Examiners
Department of Education
Office of the Attorney General
Physical Therapy

3

3547
2010
462
320
155
135
106
106
97
75
69
66
54
48
36
35
29
14
13
13
13
12
11
11
11
11
9
7
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4

Water Quality Appeals Board
Apache Junction Fire District
State Land Department
Structural Pest Control Commission
Arizona School Facilities Board
Department of Water Resources
Board of Medical Students Loan
Funeral Directors and Embalmers Board
State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind

4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1

b. Number of Cases Filed Versus Cases Concluded:
In FY 2008, the conclusion rate (defined as cases concluded divided by new cases filed)
was 97.71%.

Com parison of Cases Filed v. Case s Concluded
7600

7561

7550

Cases

7500
Cases Concluded

7450
7400

Cases Filed

7388

7350
7300

A.R.S. § 41-1092.05 calls for the setting of hearings within 60 days of a request for hearing by
an agency in a “contested case” and within 60 days of an appeal of an “appealable agency
action.” Although an argument could be made that such timelines inevitably result in unnecessary hearing settings, case management at the OAH discourages cases being “on hold” or
”riding the calendar.” Generally, a matter is vacated from the first hearing setting as the result of
settlement and does not take up a second hearing setting. Therefore, on the whole, statutory
time limits are beneficial to the larger process of regulatory action.

4

The following chart illustrates the proportion of cases that proceed to full hearing:

D is p o s itio n o f C o n c lu d e d C a s e s F Y 2 0 0 8
Va ca te d b y Ag e n cy
4%
H e a r in g s
4 5%

Va ca te d b y AL J
51%

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.

The following diagram illustrates the average timelines:

Average Days Between Selected Events - Appealable Agency
Actions v. Contested Cases
70.00
59.33
60.00

51.86

50.00
40.00

AAA

30.00

CC
16.99 17.69

20.00
10.00

12.03 10.39
1.00 1.09

0.00
Request for Hearing
to Scheduling

Scheduling to First Conclusion of Hearing
Hearing Date
to ALJ Decision

5

ALJ Decision to
Agency Action

d. Incidence of Continuance:
A single continuance in FY 2008 added an average of 56.64 days to the total length of a case.
Although 67% of all continuance requests were granted in FY 2008, the 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 continuance, defined as the
number of continuances granted (1009) divided by the total number of cases first scheduled
(7,561), was 13.34%. The ratio of first hearing settings (7,271) to continued settings on the
calendar (958) was 1 to 0.13.
The following chart illustrates the source of continuances.

Continuance upon
motion of agency
5%

Continuance upon
motion of non-agency
party
95%

The following list is a breakdown of FY 2008 continued settings and their sources, by agency.
AGENCY

Continued Motion by nonagency party

Apache Junction Fire District
Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
Arizona Medical Board
Board of Appraisal
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Board of Osteopathic Examiners
Department of Administration - Capitol Police Parking
Department of Agriculture
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Education - Special Ed
Department of Environmental Quality

6

1
11
227
8
2
2
1
1
1
11
19
36

Continued Motion by
agency party

1
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0

Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety - H/C
Department of Gaming
Department of Health Services
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Department of Racing
Department of Real Estate
Department of Revenue
Department of Water Resources
Department of Weights and Measures
Liquor Licenses and Control
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Pharmacy Board
Physical Therapy
Registrar of Contractors
Secretary of State
State Board for Charter Schools
State Board of Nursing
State Land Department
Water Quality Appeals Board

18
8
3
64
8
1
47
5
15
1
4
8
5
3
1
367
2
1
20
6
2

2
0
0
8
0
2
1
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
5
0
1
4
0
0

Total

909

49

The following chart reflects the number of motions to continue that were entertained in FY 2008 and the
percentage granted:
Client

Continuance Continuance Total Motions
Granted
Denied

Apache Junction Fire District
Arizona Department of Commerce
Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
Arizona Medical Board
Board of Appraisal
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Board of Dental Examiners
Department of Agriculture
Department of Economic Security - CPS
Department of Education
Department of Education - Special Ed
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
DFBLS - Planned Community/Condominium
Department of Gaming
Department of Health Services
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety - St. Trans

1
0
9
258
6
2
0
0
3
17
2
23
70
17
3
3
79
11
2

1
1
6
99
8
1
2
1
0
6
1
3
3
8
5
0
16
6
0

7

2
1
15
357
14
3
2
1
3
23
3
26
73
25
8
3
95
17
2

% Granted

50
0
60
72
43
67
0
0
100
74
67
88
96
68
38
100
83
65
100

Department of Racing
Department of Real Estate
Department of Revenue
Department of Water Resources
Department of Weights and Measures
Liquor Licenses and Control
Medical Radiologic
Office of the Attorney General
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Pharmacy Board
Physical Therapy
Registrar of Contractors
Secretary of State
State Board for Charter Schools
State Board Private Postsecondary Education
State Board of Accountancy
State Board of Nursing
State Land Department
Structural Pest Control Commission
Water Quality Appeals Board

47
5
16
1
7
11
0
0
2
2
1
387
1
2
0
0
16
4
0
1

1
4
5
0
4
5
1
4
1
0
0
274
0
0
15
1
9
1
3
0

48
9
21
1
11
16
1
4
3
2
1
661
1
2
15
1
25
5
3
1

98
56
76
100
64
69
0
0
67
100
100
59
100
100
0
0
64
80
0
100

Total

1009

495

1504

67%

2. Evaluation
a. Results of Public Evaluation:
Since November 1996, the OAH has administered an evaluation procedure. The support staff provides a
copy of the evaluation before the hearing in order to encourage all participants to respond. A discussion of
the evaluation form is included 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

8

The results indicate that satisfaction is high among all groups, with those responding rating the
OAH excellent to good in 94.58% to 98.56% of responses.

All Responses FY 2008
120.00%

Responses in %

100.00%

98.56%

98.12%

97.97%

97.72%

96.64%

94.58%

96.51%

95.57%

96.52%

80.00%
EXCELLENT/GOOD
60.00%

AVERAGE
POOR

40.00%

20.00%
1.21%
0.23%

1.36%
0.53%

1.65%
0.38%

1.60%
0.68%

2.52%
0.84%

4.89%

4.04%
0.39%

0.53%

3.10%
0.39%

2.92%
0.55%

0.00%
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

QUESTIONS

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

Unrepresented Responses FY 2008
700

Responses

600
500

Excellent

400

Good

300

Average

200

Poor

100
0
1

2

3

4

5
Questions

9

6

7

8

9

b. Incidence of Rehearing and Appeal:
Rehearings are permitted pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09 under certain conditions. In FY 2008,
the rehearing rate (defined as rehearings scheduled divided by cases heard) was 1.58%.
Appeals to Superior Court are provided for pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H). In FY 2008, the
judicial appeal rate (defined as judicial appeals taken divided by cases decided on the merits)
was 2.15%. As reflected in the following diagram, rehearings and judicial appeals in FY 2008
were relatively rare. Both were concentrated at the Registrar of Contractors. Registrar of
Contractors cases are primarily contests between two private litigants: homeowner versus
contractor; and contractor versus subcontractor.

Judicial Appeals and Rehearings FY 2008
40
34

35
28

30
25

Rehearings
Appeals

20
15

12

10
5

6
0 1

0

2

4
0 1

0 1

0

0 1

1

3
0

2

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

1 0

1 0

1 0

os
t

C

re

Ca
ea
lth

H

Ar
iz
on
a

Ar
iz
on
a

D

ep
ar
tm

en
to

fF

in
an
ci
al
In
st
C
Ar
o
it u
iz
nt
tio
on
ai
ns
nm
a
S
e
ch
nt
Bo
oo
Sy
ar
lF
D
d
st
ep
of
ac
em
ar
ili
O
tie
tm
st
eo
s
en
B
pa
to
oa
th
fE
rd
ic
co
Ex
no
am
m
in
ic
er
Se
D
s
D
ep
cu
ep
ar
rit
ar
D
y
tm
tm
ep
-C
en
en
ar
P
to
to
tm
S
fE
fE
en
du
to
nv
ca
iro
fF
tio
nm
ire
n
en
Bu
ta
ild
D
lQ
in
ep
g
u
ar
al
an
tm
it y
d
en
Li
fe
to
Sa
fH
fe
ea
ty
lth
D
Se
ep
rv
ar
ic
tm
es
en
D
ep
to
D
ar
fR
ep
tm
ac
ar
en
tm
in
g
to
en
fR
to
ev
fW
e
at
nu
er
e
R
es
o
Ph
ur
c
ys
es
R
ic
eg
al
is
Th
tra
er
ro
Pe
M
ap
ed
fC
y
ac
ic
St
e
on
al
at
O
t
R
r
e
ffi
ac
ad
ce
Bo
to
io
rs
ar
rs
lo
d
St
gi
of
an
c
Te
N
da
ur
ch
rd
s
in
no
s
g
an
lo
gy
d
Tr
Bo
ai
ar
ni
ng
D
d
ep
of
ar
Ex
tm
am
en
in
to
er
fR
s
ea
lE
st
at
e

0

IV. Acceptance of Administrative Law Judge Decisions
by Agencies
1. Agency Action
Agency acceptance of the Administrative Law Judge Decisions is very high. 86.64% of all
decisions acted upon by the agencies were accepted without modification. Agency acceptance
was 92.6% if viewed from the vantage point of acceptance of Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law, the core function of the Administrative Law Judge. 52.8% of modifications made by the
agencies were in the Recommended Order (penalty portion)
10

Amended Findings/Conclusions of
Law only
5.32%

Rejected
2.08%

Amended Order only
5.96%

Accepted without Modification
86.64%

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

2,500

2,296

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

158

141

Amended Order only

Amended Findings/Conclusions of Law
only

55

0
Accepted without Modification

11

Rejected

The following chart reports the breakdown of agency response by agency. The following are detailed: cases which became moot before agency action; cases which were subsequently certified
by the OAH due to agency inaction; and cases which were not subject to agency modification or
rejection by statute. This chart further illustrates that modifications and rejections are few relative to
the decisions accepted.

Accept
Accountancy
Dept. of Commerce
Education
AHCCCS
Retirement
Charter Schools
Fire, Bldg, Life, Safety
Health Services
Financial Institutions
Appraisal
DPS - Student Trans.
Chiropractic Ex.
DES - CPS
DES - Weapons Permit
DEQ
Behavioral Health Ex.
Weights and Measures
Water Resources
Gaming
Insurance
AJ Fire District
Land Department
Liquor Licenses
Arizona Lottery
Arizona Medical Board
Medical Radiologic
Nursing Care
Sec. of State-Notary
State Board of Nursing
Osteopathic Examiners
Medical Bd-Physicians
Pharmacy Board
POST
Pvt. Postsecondary Ed.
Physical Therapy
Department of Racing
Radiation Regulatory
Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
AZ School Facilities Bd.
Secretary of State

2
0
0
783
5
0
41
1
6
3
4
0
108
0
15
181
1
0
3
26
0
4
22
2
2
5
2
5
10
0
0
0
4
0
0
62
0
13
983
2
1

Amend
Order
1
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
4
3
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
102
0
0

Total

2296

158

Amend Reject
Findings
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
10
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
32
19
0
0
0
0
141

32

12

Certified

Moot

Final

Total

0
0
0
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
0

0
3
0
7
1
0
12
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
7
0
1
17
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
6
0
0

0
3
5
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3
6
5
945
8
1
78
1
8
5
6
4
122
1
16
190
9
2
5
43
3
5
31
3
11
7
2
8
11
1
1
1
5
5
1
68
1
17
1150
2
1

55

73

37

2792

In FY 2008, Administrative Law Judges rendered decisions that were contrary in whole or contrary in part to agencies’ original positions in 13.49% of cases. Agency acceptance of contrary
decisions was high at 89.91%.

Recommendations Contrary to Original Agency Action FY 2008
ALJ
Recommendation
Contrary in Whole or
in Part
13.49%

ALJ
Recommendation
Aff irms
86.51%

Agency Response to Contrary Recommendations FY 2008
160

151

140
120
Cases

100
80
60

29

40

16

20

22

0
Agency Accepts Contrary
Recommendation 69.27%

Agency Amends Findings Accepts Order Agency Amends Order Accepts Findings
13.30%
of Fact/Law 7.34%

13

Agency Rejects Contrary
Recommendation 10.09%

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

Accepted

Amended
Order

Amended
Findings

Rejected Certified

Total

State Board of Accountancy
Arizona Department of Commerce
AHCCCS
Arizona State Retirement System
Department of Building and Fire Safety
Board of Behavioral Health Examiners
Financial Institutions
Board of Appraisal
DES - CPS
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Health Services
Department of Weights and Measures
Department of Gaming
Department of Insurance
State Land Department
Liquor Licenses and Control
Arizona Lottery
Arizona Medical Board
Secretary of State-Notary
State Board of Nursing
Board of Osteopathic Examiners
Peace Officers Standards and Training
Physical Therapy
Department of Racing
Department of Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors

1
0
49
1
2
0
0
0
24
10
13
1
0
0
2
5
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
5
1
10

1
0
12
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2

0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0

0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

0
1
6
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

2
1
88
1
6
1
1
1
30
10
18
5
1
3
2
10
1
5
4
2
1
1
1
6
4
13

Total

127

29

16

22

24

218

2. Agency Inaction With Subsequent OAH Certification of Finality
Beginning August 21, 1998, the OAH was required to certify the Administrative Law Judge
Decision as the final administrative decision if the 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 2008, 62 Administrative Law Judge Decisions were
certified by the OAH as final administrative decisions.
Agency

Certified

Arizona Department of Financial Institutions
AHCCCS
Arizona Lottery

14

1
6
1

Arizona State Retirement System
Board of Appraisal
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Fire Building and Life Safety
Department of Insurance
Department of Public Safety - Concealed Weapons Permit Unit
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Department of Racing
Department of Weights and Measures
Radiation Regulatory Agency
Registrar of Contractors
Secretary of State
State Land Department

1
1
1
11
14
1
2
4
6
1
7
4
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 2008, 10 motions were filed and 1 motion was granted.

VI. Violations of A.R.S. § 41-1009
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.01(C)(9)(c), the 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. Right to settlement conferences in “contested cases.”
A.R.S. § 41-1092.03 provides that appellants to “appealable agency actions” be entitled to
settlement conferences with an agency representative. No such right exists for “contested cases,” which include most disciplinary proceedings. Such a conference may be
beneficial in expediting informal disposition of contested cases.
2. 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.

15

3. 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.
4. 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 settlements or to cases where the ISA agency prevails before the independent Administrative
Law Judge, or only as incident to disciplinary orders.

16