 |
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Fifty-Sixth Legislature, Second Regular Session
REVISED
proper venue; challenges; policy statements
Purpose
Allows a party that appeals a final administrative decision to bring the action in any proper venue as prescribed.
Background
Statute stipulates that each agency must make rules of practice setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal procedures available to the public.
To ensure fair
and open regulation by state agencies, statute outlines the rights of a person,
that include the ability to: 1) allege that an existing agency practice or substantive
policy statement constitutes a rule and have that agency practice or
substantive policy statement declared void;
2) file a complaint with the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee
concerning a rule's, practice's or substantive policy statement's lack of
conformity with statute or legislative intent or an existing statute, rule,
practice alleged to constitute a rule or substantive policy statement that is
alleged to be duplicative or onerous; 3) have the person's administrative
hearing on contested cases and appealable agency actions heard by an
independent administrative law judge; 4) have administrative hearings governed
by uniform administrative appeal procedures and appeal a final administrative
decision by filing a notice of appeal; and 5) file a complaint with the Office
of the Ombudsman-Citizens Aide to investigate administrative acts of agencies.
Statute outlines specified exceptions.
Substantive policy statement is a written expression which informs the general public of an agency's current approach to, or opinion of, the requirements of the federal or state constitution, federal or state statute, administrative rule or regulation, or final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, including, the agency's current practice, procedure or method of action based upon that approach or opinion. A substantive policy statement is advisory only and excludes internal procedural documents which only affect the internal procedures of the agency and do not impose additional requirements or penalties on regulated parties, confidential information or rules (A.R.S. §§ 41-1001; 41-1001.01; and 41-1003).
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee fiscal note estimates that H.B. 2490 would increase travel costs to the extent that state agencies would be required to travel to rural counties for administrative proceedings. Any increase is expected to be minimal. The Office of Administrative Hearings and the Superior Court do not expect H.B. 2490 to generate a fiscal impact associated with their operations (JLBC Fiscal Note).
Provisions
1. Allows a party that appeals a final administrative decision to the superior court to bring the action in any proper venue.
2. Specifies that the proper venue includes:
a) the county where the plaintiff resides;
b) the county where the plaintiff's principal place of business is located;
c) the county where the agency is headquartered; and
d) Maricopa County.
3. Prohibits an agency from:
a) restricting the proper venue for any appeal of a final administrative decision; or
b) requiring a party to travel to the agency's county, venue or headquarters to submit or receive documentation that supports the analysis used to propose or finalize a final administrative decision.
4. Includes, rather than excludes, from the definition of substantive policy statement internal procedural documents that affect the internal procedures of the agency or that impose additional requirements or penalties on regulated parties, confidential information or rules.
5. Excludes from the definition of substantive policy statement any confidential information or other information otherwise protected from disclosure.
6. Makes technical and conforming changes.
7. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Revisions
· Updates the fiscal impact statement.
House Action
GOV 2/7/24 DPA 9-0-0-0
3rd Read 2/29/24 59-0-0-0-1
Prepared by Senate Research
April 15, 2024
JT/MA/slp