Report on the licensing boards and commissions of Arizona

              1
REPORT ON
THE LICENSING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
OF ARIZONA
* * * * *' * * * * * * * * * *
PREPARED BY
THE RESEARCH STAFF
OF THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
December, 1962
This report is factual only and does not con­stitute
a recemmendation on the part of the
,J~tt. Councll ~r any of the staff members.
:f!rimh"-. L"iJ;olG.-\....... ~0lL"'''' I
EMORY UNIVERSITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
1Lamar~(hoolof1.Ca\ll1Librar~
~
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1
Summary •• 0 •• 0 • 0 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• " •• 0 • 10 3
Part I, Licensing Boards in General •••••••••••••••••• 5
Part II, What Objections Have Been Made to Current
Licensing Practices........................ 8
Part III, What is the Sphere of Activity Within Which
a Licensing Board or Commission may Con­stitutionally
Operate? •••••••••••••••••••• 9
Part IV, Some Licensing Boards and Commissions in
Other States Have Become Monopolistic •••••• 16
Part V, Other States Have Found That the Situation
Can be Improved by Tightening Their Con-trols
Over the Administrative Agencies ••••• 19
Part VI, Conclusions •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21
Appendix I, The Model State Administrative Procedure
Act ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,. 22
Appendix II, Statistical Report on Arizona's Licensing
Agencies ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 31
Index to Appendix II ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 32
ARIZO~!A STATE L1BRMiY
ARCHIVES (~ RECORDS
MAY 0 5 2005
STATE DOCUlv\ENTS
ARIZONA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Room 324
State Capitol
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CLARENCE L. CARPENTER
President of the Senate
Chairman
SENATE lV1EMBERS
Benjamin L. Arnold, Sr.
Hiram S. Corbett
Harold C. Giss
Joe Haldiman, Jr.
Robert W. Prochnow
Jules M. Klagge
Director
December, 1962
w. L. "TAY" COOK
Speaker of the House
Vice Chairman
HOUSE J\1El\1BERS
Mabel Ellis
Louis B. Ellsworth, Jr.
Etta Mae Hutcheson
Ray Martin
Robert Stump
"Mr. President, I move that the Senate direct
the Staff of the Legislative Coun.cil to report to the
Twenty-sixth Legislature, First RegUlar Session, upon
the subject matter of this motion.
Signed: Harold C. Giss"
Accordingly, the staff of the Legislative Council submits
the following reporte
-2-
SUMMARY
It is not the function of the staff of the Legislative
Council to judge the effectiveness of the licensing boards and
commissions in the State of Arizona. Since we can neither
jUdge nor advise, this report is confined to informing the
legislature of the experiences which other states have had
in reviewing the operations of their boards and commissions.
In summary, the point which this report attempts to
make is this: Licensing boards and commissions have assumed
a highly important role in state government. They control
or regulate the livelihood of thousands upon thousands of
Arizona citizens; they can be an influential factor in the
economy of the state. The licensing agencies operate under
widely divergent rules and regulations. Because of the com­plexity,
the legislature is unable to devote its time to the
job of re-examining the operations of the licensing agencies
in an effort to determine whether the agencies are conduct­ing
their affairs in a manner which would meet the approval
of the legislature. Whether the boards and commissions of
Arizona have operated in a manner which the legislature
would find objectionable is outside the scope of this re­port.
We wish only to point out that the opportunity for
engaging in objectionable practices exists. Should the leg­islature
feel that this opportunity, standing alone, merits
further investigation, it may wish to appoint some competent
body to study the matter.
-3-
As the affairs of state becqme more burdensome through
the years~ legislatures, both state and federal~ saw an oppor­tunity
to relieve the executive branch of some of its purely
administrative functions by creating administrative agencies.
At the same time~ they recognized that opportunities existed
for the non-elective officials of the administrative agencies
to abuse their authoritYo So the legislatures set up certain
safeguards 0 These safeguards, generally speaking, took two
forms: F1rst~ a restriction upon the authority of the boards
and commissions and, second, a system of review of administra­tive
decisions~
But government became even more complex and legislatures
found it necessary to create more and more boards and com­mlsslonse
For the most partj) these agencies were created one
by one, each being a little different from all the others.
The result is something like a patchwork quilt. The areas of
responsibility of the various agencies have mushroomed. There
are so many of them that few people understand the workings of
everyone of them. Recognizing this, some states have deter­mined
that all these agencies should be brought under the same
framework of rules so that the legislatures could survey their
operations periodically without having to undertake a large
scale investigationo
-4-
PART I
The basic virtue of state licensing of certain occupa-tions
and professions has been agreed upon by most authorities.
Professor Charles M. Kneier of the University of Illinois put
it this way:
Licensing, with the threat of revocation for viola­tion
of the rules and regulations which are set
down to be observed by persons holding licenses, may
be more effective than an ordinance prohibiting cer­tain
acts and providing penalties for its violation.
The threat of being put out of business--temporarily
by a suspension or permanently by a revocation--will
in many cases be more effective in securing compli­ance
with regulations than will be the threat of a
fine. Any by passing upon the competence of persons
to hold licenses, and laying down requirements to be
met before a license will be issued, enforcement
problems may be reduced. Limiting the number of li­censes
to be granted may in some cases, as in liquor
and taxicab licensing, be an effective means of regu­lation,
and one that will be upheld by the courts.
See 57 Universiti of£11in2!s Law forum 1.
However, several states found, upon examining the practices of
their various boards and commissions, that these administrative
agencies had become inefficient and arbitrary and had usurped
the power of the legislature by exceeding the limitations placed
upon them both by state statutes and constitutions.
Since there seems to be no substantial controversy among
authorities in the field as to the need for licensing boards
and commissions, this report assumes their value We have
directed our attention only to the abuses which have been
found to exist by investigating committees in other states.
-5-
The starf of the Legislative Council feels that the statis­tical
material presented in Appendix II of this report, con­sidered
with the material presented in this portion of the
report, will enable the legislature to determine whether or
not our system of professional and occupational licensing
will require any further investigation.
As our civilization and government have become increas­ingly
complex, both state and federal legislative bodies have
found that the government can be operated more efficiently by
creating various administrative agencies. These agencies,
often referred to as boards or commissions, have become so
numerous today that few people understand their operations.
State legislatures all across the country have begun to awaken
to the fact that boards and commissions have been in operation
so long that they have evolved into what might be likened to
a small, unsupervised government of their own. Some states
have decided that the time has come to examine the entire
system of boards and commissions with a view to modernizing
their operations, re-defining their scope of authority and
setting up some sort of machinery which will prevent the ad­ministrative
agencies from ever again withdrawing their opera­tions
from the public view.
This feeling is so widespread that the problem has come
to the attention of the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws. The function of this organization is
to gather the best minds in the country in a given field and
-6-
to attempt to solve problems through the device of a "model
act". This model act is then made available to any state
legislature which wishes to pass a law dealing with the par­ticular
problem at hand. Of course the legislatures of the
various states are the only bodies competent to pass upon the
wisdom of the legislation. But the legislature at least has
an excellent skeleton on which to build its law. A model act
is the end product of the combined efforts of the most learned
men in the fielde The text of the model act appears as Appen­dix
I to this report.
-7-
PART II
What Objections Have Been Made to Qurrent Licensing Procedures?
Most of the objections to current licensing practices have
fallen into one or more of the following categories:
1. The boards have gone beyond that sphere of activity
within which the state constitution permits them to operate.
2. The licensing boards have become monopolistic.
They have been used by the members of the boards and commissions
as a device to restrict competition by arbitrarily or unfairly
refusing to issue licenses to applicants.
3. No machinery exists which offers a fair and impartial
appeal procedure from the boards' decisions. This is the spe­cific
problem to which the model act is directed.
These problems shade into one another and it is difficult
to discuss any of them without involving the others. The
draftsmen of the model act were of the opinion that most of the
problems could be solved by providing a more complete and uni­form
appellate procedure. The model act which they drafted was
intended to accomplish that purpose.
PART III
What is the ~re of Acti~tl Within Which a Licensing Board
or Commission Ma~ ,Constitutionally Operate?
Two constitutional limitations are placed upon legislative
creation of boards and commissjonse The first is imposed by the
state constitutional provision granting the law-making power to
the legislatureo The second is the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution which insures to every person the right to
engage in any lawful occupation.
All state constitutions grant the law-making power to the
legislature of the state and to no one else. This is at once
a grant of power to the legislature and a limitation upon its
power. The legislature is not permitted to delegate the power
to make laws to any other person or group of people. On the
other hand, the legislature need not trouble itself with the day
to day administration of the laws which it passes. It may create
other bodies to carry out this function. But if the legislature
decides to adopt this course of action, it must prescribe fairly
definite rules within which the administrative agency is permitted
to operate. The legislature may not delegate any authority the
exercise of which will require the administrative agency to make
a policy decision.
Emerging from this are two rules. First, an administrative
agency may not exceed the authority given to it by the legisla­ture~
Second, the legislature may not delegate any policy-making
authority.
-9-
These rules are easily stated but often difficult to define
and apply. Volumes have been written on the question of whether
or not a particular act involves discretiono For instance, sev-eral
states have set up administrative agencies to police the
distribution of obscene literature. The constitutionality of
the creation of this type of administrative agency has been at-tacked
on the grounds that deciding what is obscene and what
is not obscene is a policy decision o Some states have ruled
one way, others have taken the opposite position. The point is,
it is often difficult to determine whether a particular act is
strictly administrative or whether it involves a policy decision o
But to lay down all of the specific acts which would consti-tute
grounds for refusal to issue a license or grounds for the
revocation of an existing license would be an insurmountable tasko
Recognizing this, the courts have usually given the licensing
statute a liberal interpretationo
Where the legislature has attempted to define the
grounds which justify refusal or revocation of licenses,
constitutional issues are frequently raised because of
the apparent vagueness and indefiniteness of the statu­tory
standards. The courts have apparently determined
these issues with reference to the practicability of
greater specification of statement of the particular
legislative goal to be achieved. Where greater specifi­cation
is deemed impossible, the courts have implied a
legislative intent to grant only reasonable discretion
and have sustained the legislationo See 9 University
of ChJ...cae;o Law Review 694 (1942) 0 •
-10-
The problem is apparento On the one hand, the legislature
is constitutionally prohibited from giving a licensing board a
"carte blanche". It must set down reasonably definite standards
within which the board can operate. Theoretically, the board
should never be permitted to exercise discretion; it should
never be permitted to make a policy decision. That power is
vested solely in the legislature and the state constitutions
prohibit the legislatures from delegating that power to any-one.
Licensing statutes which contain inadequate stand­ards
to guide administrative discretion, however, have
been held to be invalid delegations of legislative power,
and to violate the equal protection and due process
clauses of the Illinois Constitution. ide
On the other hand, if the licensing boards are to operate ef­fectively,
and if they are to accomplish the laudable purposes for
which they were established, they must be permitted at least some
small latitude of discretion. The courts have recognized this
necessity and have been willing to sustain a certain minimum
amount of discretionary activity.
When the board exercises discretion and makes policy de-cisions,
it does so by enacting regulations. The regulations
have the force of law and often have greater impact on the
-11-
livelihood of the licensed practitioners than many of the
statutes passed under the dignity of the state legislatures.
It is largely because of the heavy impact of these regulations
that state legislatures of other states have found it de­sirable
to institute full-scale investigations into the opera­tions
of their boards and commissions.
The legislature is also limited by the Fourteenth Amend­ment
to the Federal Constitution. We must begin with the prop­osition
that the Federal Constitution insures to every person
the right to engage in any lawful occupation or profession.
This guaranty to the people is, at the same time, a restriction
on the power of the government, both state and federal. If
this constitutional provision were all that need be considered,
the licensing boards and commissions would be unconstitutional,
for they clearly impose restrictions upon the pursuit of lawful
occupations and professions.
But that is not the whole picture. Another constitutional
provision grants the right to the state governments to take
whatever steps are reasonably necessary to insure the health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the people. This is
known as the police power. Restrictions imposed by the states
upon the pursuit of many trades and professions have been
-12-
upheld under the police power. Businesses which are commonly
thought to be harmful in themselves or which historically have
been considered to have no legitimate functions may be pro­hibited
entirely, and, of course, may be regulated by the state~
Businesses or professions serving valuable economic or social
purposes may not be prohibited, but they may, nevertheless, be
subjected to regulation in the interests of public health,
safety and welfare when they are attended with danger or liable
to abuse.
Although the individualts right to enter any lawful pro­fession
or occupation is a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitution, it is necessary that
this right be balanced against the duty of the state, under
its police power to protect the pUblic health, safety, morals
and general welfareG The wisdom of these two constitutional
provisions is beyond question~ But when considering the prob­lem
of licensing, they often clash; the policies behind the
two amendments must be considered and a balance must be struck
between theme
Licensing statutes have been attacked in the courts again
and again. These attacks have sometimes been successful and
sometimes not. Whenever the constitutionality of a licensing
statute is questioned, it is questioned on one of two grounds:
(1) whether the subject-matter can be licensed, and (2) whether
the method of regulation which is adopted is reasonably calculated
to accomplish its constitutional objective.
54667
In order for a court to sustain a statute as an exercise
of the police power, the court must find that the enactment has
for its object the protection of the public health, safety,
morals, or general welfareo The state may not, under the guise
of protecting the public. arbitrarily interfere with or pro­hibit
private business or lawful occupations. Courts of other
states have struck down licensing statutes which sought to
regulate the licensing of photographers, horseshoers. paper­hangers,
florists, accountants, land surveyors, house painters,
and dry cleaners o The licensing of law, medicine. and veteri­nary
medicine have usually been upheldo
Not only must the sUbject be one which may be regulated,
but there must also be some clear and substantial relationship
between the assumed purpose of the statute and its actual pro­visions
o The legislature has the duty of determining the need,
wisdom, and expediency of licensing regulations, and the courts
will not interfere with its decision unless the law is arbitrary,
capricious, or bears no reasonable relation to the legislative
purposeo For instance, a rule under a Nebraska statute which
licensed funeral directors required the directors to keep a min­imum
number of caskets on hand at all times. This was held in­valid
because it tended to create a monopoly in those who were
financially able to keep this stock on hando In the opinion of
one writer, the device of state licensing had gone far beyond
the protection of the public welfare 0 He believed that a aon­siderable
portion of the confusion and waste which had resulted
-14-
by licensing in his state could be avoided simply by obviating
the need for licenses in many occupations and professions.
Thus, it appears, through the system of licensing,
we are tending to revive the evils of the Middle Ages
where trade and craft guilds monopolized the individual
trades, and the rigidity of vocational lines became un­bearable.
Almost every occupation has elements of
danger and lack of integrity or capacity, but few trades
are so essentially vested with a social interest as to
justify their establishment by legislative grant as a
close-knit, self-governing trade guild. Only those
businesses which directly touch the public health, safety,
morals, or general welfare, and which distinguish them­selves
from the other occupations because of such posi­tion,
should be licensed. The interests and rights of
the people should not be sacrificed to please a minority
when the public is able to protect itself against these
evils in the particular calling as it does in everyday
business. See 29 Nebraska Law Review 146 (1950).
And he is not alone in his views:
It is impossible to conceive how the health, com­fort,
safety or welfare of society is to be promoted
by requiring a horseshoer to practice the business of
horseshoeing for four years ••• and submit to an ex­amination
••• and to pay a license fee. See Bessette
v. People, 193 Ill. 334, 62 N.E. 215 (1901), quoted
with approval in 46 Illinois Law Review 328 (1949).
The purpose of this somewhat extensive treatment of the
constitutional background of licensing statutes is intended to
provide the legislature a yardstick with which to measure the
activities of the Arizona boards and commissions. The ques-tions
which present themselves from this discussion seem to
be: (1) Have the boards and commissions restricted themselves
solely to purely administrative functions or have they over-stepped
their constitutional limitations by entering the field
of policy making? (2) Are all the licensing boards and com~
missions which exist in Arizona necessary for the protection of
the public health, morals, safety or general welfare?
-15-
PART IV
Some ,Licensing Boa~ds and Commis§i£ns in Oth~ States
Have Become Monopolistic.
Some states have found that their licensing boards and com­missions
have become "monopolistic". The boards have been oper­ated
in an unsupervised manner for a long period of time and,
with the passage of time, have furthered their own interests
rather than performed their functions as guardians of the public
health, safety and general welfare. There have been instances
where a board has capriciously refused admission to new appli-cants
in the interest of maintaining a high demand for the serv­ices
of the relatively few practitioners who are already lice~sed.
Some instances have been uncovered where the board passed unrea~·
sonable regulations which it imposed upon the licensed practitioners
in an effort to cut down the number of persons following that occu­pation
or profession. These regulations are objectionable when
they bear no relationship to the public welfare but are intended
solely to be an economic benefit to the practitioners of the
particular occupation or profession involved.
The monopolistic tendencies of a licensing board, if any
exist, can arise only when a board has exceeded its constitutional
authority. When a board has become so separated and independent
from the legislature which created it, and from the courts whose
duty it is to police it, it is free to make its own rules, which
have the effect of law; it is free to apply its own subjective
-16-
standards in decision making, for whatever reason it pleases,
and it never need fear reversal or exposure by any other body~
Comments on this phase of the problem are abundant.
The extracts which follow are representative •
••• another reason for such statutes (licensing statutes)
is often stated by the opponents, and the courts, is
that the group is attempting to create a state-sanctioned
monopoly or closed-shop. This, it is contended, is done
by the examining boards when they are members of the
trade, accepting only a limited number of new members
every year, thus reducing competition and also through
rules and regulations which affect or establish process.
Such a grasp, makes reasonably certain that the members
will be employed, and eliminates cut-throat competition
within the industry itself. There is usually a provision
for automatic entry of those already engaged in practice
for a specified time, and then the requirements are
raised, if necessary, to ease competition when the field
becomes overcrowded.
Although ••• (licensing) statutes may be easily
justified, they may still be objectionable because of
their monopolistic tendency~
There are three methods by which the legislature
may set up its licensing statute: (1) Delegate the
power to license to the trade association existing in
that particular field; (2) Create a licensing board
made up of members of the particular trade and estab­lish
it as a state administrative body; and (3) Give
the power to license to an already existing state ad­ministrative
department whose members are employees of
the state. The latter of these methods would tend to
reduce the probability of a self-controlled monopoly,
but in many of the skilled and specialized professions,
the effectiveness of the operation of the statute
would be diminished if not controlled by people famil­iar
with the profession. This type of control also
throws a greater burden on the state. However, it
would appear that a board administered by state em­ployees
would be a strong factor in favor of the valid­ity
of such a regulation, since one assumes that the
possibility of arbitrary regulations and rules would
not be so likely. See 29 Nebraska Law Review 146 (1950).
The administration of occupational licensing laws
in Illinois was, at first, entrusted to separate and
independent boards or commissions, whose members were
chosen by the governor from the ranks of the group to
be licensed. Possibilities of monopolistic abuse were
clearly inherent in this type of organization. In 1917
Illinois adopted the Civil Administrative Code, which
abolished 105 offices, boards, commissions, and agencies
and placed them in the administrative departments and
commissions created by the code. These departments an
commissions were generally empowered both ~o issue and
to revoke licenses. Although the Department of Regis­tration
and Education, which administers more than twenty
of these statutes, is now the most important licensing
agency in the state, other licensing statutes are admin­istered
by the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of
State, Department of Insurance, Department of Finance,
Department of Conservation, Liquor Control Commission,
Aeronautics Commission, Athlet:i.c Commission, Department
of Public Welfare, Racing Board, Commerce Commission,
and Mining Board. Under the provisions of the code the
Director of the Department of Registration and Educa-tion
appoints the members of the professional examining
committees which administer the various statutes under
the supervision of the department. Final orders granting
or revoking licenses are issued by the director only upon
written authorization by the professional committees, and he
is given a veto power over the action of the committees.
Thus the possibilities .of abuse of power by professional
committees for monopolistic ends are checked by an impar­tial
administrative authority, while at the same time the
advantages of expertness in dealing with technical pro­fessional
problems are retained. 9 University of Chicago
Law Review 694. ---
The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the li­censing
of tile contractors in a ringing opinion which
declared, "The Act in question here has as its main and
controlling purpose, not health, not safety, not morals,
not welfare, but a tight control of tile contracting in
perpetuity by those already in the business ••• " Stat-utes
in other states licensing such persons as photographers,
and real estate brokers have been declared unconstitutional
as bearing no reasonable relationship to the police power.
See 35 _Di;;;.;c;;.,.;;L..;;;;a 235, (1958).
-18-
PART V
Other States Have Found That the Situation Can be
Imp~9.~ed by Tightening Their Co~trols Over the
Administrative Agenc~s.
The violations of constitutional authority and the monopo-listie
tendencies of boards and commissions have largely been
made possible because an effective system of review of board
actions doesn!t exist. The Ohio Administrative Commission
studying hearings conducted by licensing agencies found:
(1) that many licensing acts failed to provide for a
hearing on the revocation, suspension, refusal to issue
or refusal to renew a license, (2) that in those acts
which did contemplate a hearing there was generally a
lack of provision for procedures essential to an adequate
hearing such as notice, record, and the attendance of.wit­nesses,
and (3) that the procedures established by statute
for conducting hearings were utterly lacking in uniformity.
The Commission expressed the opinion:
(1) that every agency should have to offer a person a
hearing when revoking, suspending, refusing to issue, or
refusing to renew a license; and (2) that the hearings
afforded should conform to accepted standards of procedure
for fair hearings.
The proposed act, which was prepared to serve as a model for
state legislation on administrative procedure, served as the
basis for the Model State Administrative Procedure Act eventually
adopted by the Natural Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws in 19460
The model act, which was considered by the National Confer-ence
on Uniform State Laws for seven years and completely re-drafted
three times was finally adopted after a most painstaking
-19-
study of the entire field of administrative procedure by the
conference, and a great number of specially informed persons
in the field. The completed version truly represents the work
of many hands.
To insure these principles of justice and fairness the
model act provides the following safeguards:
1. Requirement that each agency shall adopt es­sential
procedural rules and that, so far as practicable,
all rulemaking, both procedural and sUbstantive, shall be
accompanied by notice of hearing to interested persons.
2. Assurance of proper publicity for administrative
rules that affect the pUblic.
3. Provision for advance determination of "declar­atoryjudgments"
on the validity of administrative rUles,
and for "declaratory rulings" affording advance determina­tion
of the application of administration to particular
cases.
4. Assurance of fundamental fairness in adminis­trative
hearings, particularly in regards to rules of
evidence and the taking of official notice in quasi­jUdicial
proceedings.
5. Provisions assuring personal famil~arity on the
part of the ,responsible deciding officers and agency
heads with'the evidence in quasi-judicial cases decided
by them.
6. Assurance of proper scope of judicial review
of administrative orders to guarantee correction of
administrative errors. (See the Model State Administra­tive
Procedure Acts 33 Iowa Law Review 198)
-20-
PART VI
Conclusion
This report has attempted to show that several states
have investigated their licensing boards and commissions. Upon
investigation~ they have found that the boards have created their
own complex structure of rules and regulations which have the
force of law and which are entirely free from the limitations
which are placed upon the legislature itself. They have found
that the freedom given to (or taken by) the boards and commis­sions
has been used to adopt practices which are inconsistent
with the freedoms, liberties and property rights of the licensed
professions and occupations, all to the detriment of the general
public. It has been said that these abuses could be corrected
and prohibited from ever happening again by setting up a uniform
system of procedure which every licensing board and commission
must follow when it enacts new regulations and a uniform system
of review which every new regulation and every board decision
is subject to.
The problem was submitted to the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. This group produced the
following model act which, in the opinion of the writers, will
provide adequate safeguards against these abuses.
-21-
APPENDIX I
Model State Administrative Procedure Act
AN ACT CONCERNING PROCEDURE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND
REVIEW OF THEIR DETERMINATIONS
Be it enacted 0 • • •
SECTION 10 (Definitions.) For the purpose of this Act:
(1) "Agency" means any state [board, commission, department,
or officer], authorized by law to make rules or to adjudicate con­tested
cases, except those in the legislative or judicial branches,
and except • • • 0 [here insert the names of any agencies such as
the parole boards of certain states, Which, though authorized to
hold hearings, exercise purely discretionary functions].
(2) "Rule" includes every regulation, standard, or statement
of policy or interpretation of general application and future ef­fect,
including the amendment or repeal thereof, adopted by an
agency, whether with or without prior hearing, to implement or make
specific the law enforced or administered by it or to govern its
organization or procedure, but does not include regulations con­cerning
only the internal management of the agency and not di­rectly
affecting the rights of or procedures available to the
public.
(3) "Contested case" means a proceeding before an agency
in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific
parties are required by law or constitutional right to be deter­mined
after an agency hearing.
-22-
SECTION 2. (Adoption of Rules.) In addition to other
rule-making requirements imposed by law:
(1) Each agency shall adopt rules governing the formal
and informal procedures prescribed or authorized by this act.
Such rules shall include rules of practice before the agency,
together with forms and instructions.
(2) To assist interested persons dealing with it, each
agency shall so far as deemed practicable supplement its rules
with descriptive statements of its procedures.
(3) Prior to the adoption of any rule authorized by law, or
the amendment or repeal thereof, the adopting agency shall as
far as practicable, pUblish or otherwise circulate notice of its
intended action and afford interested persons opportunity to sub­mit
data or views orally or in writing.
SECTION 3. (Filing and Taking Effect of Rules.)
(1) Each agency shall file forthwith in the office of the
[Secretary of State] a certified copy of each rule adopted by it,
including all rules now in effect. The [Secretary of State] shall
keep a permanent register of such rules open to pUblic inspection.
(2) Each rule hereafter adopted shall become effective upon
filing, unless a later date is required by statute or specified
in the rule.
SECTION 4. (Publication of Rules.)
(1) The [Secretary of State] shall, as soon as practicable
after the effective date of this act, compile, index, and pUblish
all rules adopted by each agency and remaining in effect. Com­pilations
shall be supplemented or revised as often as necessary
-23-
[and at least once every two years].
(2) The [Secretary of State] shall publish a [monthly]
bulletin in which he shall set forth the text of all rules
filed during the preceding [month], excluding rules in effect
upon the adoption of this act.
(3) The [Secretary] may in his discretion omit from the
bulletin or the compilation rules the pUblication of which would
be unduly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise inexpedient, if
such rules are made available in printed or processed form on
application to the adopting agency, and if the bulletin or com­pilation
contains a notice stating the general subject matter of
the rules so omitted and stating how copies thereof may be ob­tained.
(4) Bulletins and compilations shall be made available
upon request to [officials of this state] free of charge, and to
other persons at a price fixed by the [Secretary of State] to
cover pUblication and mailing costs.
SECTION 5. (Petition for Adoption of Rules.) Any inter­ested
person may petition an agency requesting the promulgation,
amendment, or repeal of any rule. Each agency shall prescribe
by rule the form for such petitions and the procedure for their
submission, consideration, and disposition.
SECTION 6. (Declaratory Judgment on Validity of Rules.)
(1) The validity of any rule may be determined upon peti­tion
for a declaratory judgment thereon addressed to the [District
Court] of --------------- County, when it appears that the rule,
-24-
or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs, or
threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privi­leges
of the petitioner. The agency shall be made a party to the
proceeding. The declaratory judgment may be rendered whether or
not the petitioner has first requested the ~gency to pass upon the
validity of the rule in question.
(2) The court shall declare the rule invalid if it finds that
it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory au­thority
of the agency or was adopted without compliance with statu­tory
rule-making procedures.
SECTION 7. (Petition for Declaratory Rulings by Agencies.)
On petition of any interested person, any agency may issue a declar­atory
ruling with respect to the applicability to any person, prop­erty,
or state of facts of any rule or statute enforceable by ito
A declaratory rUling, if issued after argument and stated to be
binding, is binding between the agency and the petitioner on the
state of facts alleged, unless it is altered or set aside by a court.
Such a ruling is subject to review in the [District Court] in the
manner hereinafter provided for the review of decisions in con­tested
cases. Each agency shall prescribe by rule the form for
such petitions and the procedure for their sUbmission, considera­tion,
and disposition.
SECTION 8. (Contested Cases; Notice, Hearing, Records.) In
any contested case all parties shall be afforded an opportunity
for hearing after reasonable notice. The notice shall state the
time, place, and issues involved, but if, by reason of the nature
of the proceeding, the issues cannot be fUlly stated in advance
-25-
of the hearing, or if subsequent amendment of the issues is nec­essary,
they shall be fully stated as soon as practicable, and
opportunity shall be afforded all parties to present evidence
and argument with respect thereto. The agency shall prepare an
official record, which shall include testimony and eXhibits, in
each contested case, but it shall not be necessary to transcribe
shorthand notes unless requested for purposes of rehearing or
court review. Informal disposition may also be made of any con­tested
case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or
default. Each agency shall adopt appropriate rules of procedure
for notice and hearing in contested cases.
SECTION 9. (Rules of Evidence: Official Notice.) In con­tested
cases:
(1) Agencies may admit and give probative effect to eVi~ence
which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonably
prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. They shall give ef­fect
to the rules of privilege recognized by law. They may exclude
incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and unduly repetitious evidence.
(2) All evidence, including records and documents in the pos­session
of the agency of which it desires to avail itself, shall be
offered and made a part of the record in the case, and no other fac­tual
information or evidence shall be considered in the determina­tion
of the case. Documentary evidence may be received in the form
of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference.
(3) Every party shall have the right of cross-examination of
witnesses who testify, and shall have the right to submit rebuttal
evidence.
-26-
(4) Agencies may take notice of judicially cognizable
facts and in addition may take notice of general, technical, or
scientific facts within their specialized knowledge. Parties
shall be notified either before or during hearing, or by refer­ence
in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material so
noticed, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the
facts so noticedo Agencies may utilize their experience, teQh­nlcal
competence, and specialized knowledge in the evaluatiqn of
the evidence presented to them.
SECTION 10. (Examination of Evidence by Agency.) Whenever
in a contested case a majority of the officials of the agency who
are to render the final decision have not heard or read the evi­dence,
the decision, if adverse to a party to the proceeding other
than the agency itself, shall not be made until a proposal fqr
decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, has
been served upon the parties, and an opportunity has been afforded
to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present
argument to a majority of the officials who are to render the de­cision,
who shall personally consider the whole record or such
portions thereof as may be cited by the parties. [This section shall
not apply to the following agencies ••••••••••••••• 0 •• 0000.0.000000]
SECTION 110 (Decisions and Orders.) Every decision and order
adverse to a party to the proceeding, rendered by an agency in a
contested case, shall be in writing or stated in the record and
shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of lawo
The findings of fact shall consist of a concise statement of the
conclusions upon each contested issue of facto Parties to the
-27-
proceeding shall be notified of the decision and order in person
or by mailo A copy of the decision and order and accompanying
findings and conclusions shall be delivered or mailed upon re­quest
to each party or to his attorney of record o
SECTION 12. (Judicial Review of Contested Caseso)
(1) Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested
case, whether such decision is affirmative or negative in form, is
entitled to judicial review thereof under this act, [but nothing
in this section shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means
of review, redress, relief or trial de novo, provided by lawoJ
(2) Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a
petition in the [District Court] within [thirty] days after the
service of the final decision of the agencyo Copies of the peti­tion
shall be served upon the agency and all other parties of
recordo [In the manner provided by .00.000000 •••• 0 ••• J The court,
in its discretion, may permit other interested persons to intervene.
(3) The filing of the petition shall not stay enforcement
of the agency decision; but the agency may do so, or the reviewing
court may order a stay upon such terms as it deems proper.
(4) Within [thirtyJ days after service of the petition, or
within such further time as the court may allow, the agency shall
transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy
of the entire record of the proceeding under review; but, by stipu­lation
of all parties to the review proceeding, the record may be
shortenedo Any party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit
the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The
court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to
-28-
the record when deemed desirablee
(5) If, before the date set for hearing, application is
made to the court for leave to present additional evidence on the
issues in the case, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the
court that the additional evidence is material and that there
were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding be­fore
the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence
be taken before the agency upon such conditions as the court deems
propero The agency may modify its findings and decision by reason
of the additional evidence and shall file with the reviewing court,
to become a part of the record, the additional evidence, together
with any modifications or new findings or decision.
(6) The review shall be conducted by the court without a
jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in caSeS of
alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency, not shown
in the record, testimony thereon may be taken in the court. The
court shall, upon request, hear oral argument and receive wr!tten
briefso
(7) The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand
the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the
decision if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been
prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, con­clusions,
or decisions are:
(a) in violation of constitutional provisions; or
(b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
the agency; or
-29-
..
(c) made upon unlawful procedure; or
(d) affected by other error of law; or
(e) unsupported by competent~ material, and substantial
evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(f) arbitrary or capricious.
[SECTION 13. (Appeals.) An aggrieved party may secure a re­view
of any final jUdgment of the [District Court] under this act by
appeal to the [Supreme Court]. Such appeal shall be taken in the
manner provided by law for appeals from the [District Court] in
other civil cases.]
[SECTION 14. (Constitutionality.) If any provision of this
act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications of the act which can be given effect without the
invalid provision orapplication~ and to this end the provisions
of this act are declared to be severable.]
SECTION 15. (Repeal.) All acts or parts of acts which are
inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed,
but such repeal shall not affect pending proceedings.
SECTION 16. (Time of Taking Effect.) This act shall take
effect eeeo ••••• ec.o.o.ooe.e •••••••
-30-
*
APPENDIX II
statistical Report on Arizona's Licensing Agenci~
This appendix contains statistical information relating
to every licensing board and commission operating within the
state of Arizona, with the exception of the State Bar of
Arizona. Our blank questionnaire was returned by that organ-ization
under a cover letter which stated that this report did
not apply to them. The reply of the State Bar of Arizona is
quoted below:
"Mr. Jules M. Klagge, Director
Legislative Council
State Capitol
Phoenix 7, Arizona
Dear Mr. Klagge~
"Mr. Don Phillips, Executive Secretary of the State
Bar of Arizona,hashanded me your letter of October 1,
1962, with the request that I reply thereto.
"Because the Committee and Examinations and Admis­sions
is an agency which functions as a committee of the
Supreme Court of Arizona under rules prescribed by the
Court, I feel that your questionnaire is inapplicable.
"For your convenience I enclose a copy of the rules
under which the Committee functions.
"I assure you of the Committee's desire to cooperate
in your study. However, because the function of admit­ting
persons to the State bar is judicial rather than
legislative, any information that we might give could
distort the results of your study.
Very truly yours,
Rouland W. Hill
Chairman"
-31-
Index to Appendix II
Page
Size of Boards ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 33
Personnel Employed by the Board •••••••••••••••••• 34
Receipts for Fiscal Year 1961-62 ••••••••••••••••• 35
Expenditures for Fiscal Year 1961-62 ••••••••••••• 36
Amount of Money Carried in the Boards' Accounts •• 37
Fiscal Years 1957-58 Through 1961-62
Examination Data ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 38
License Renewals ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 45
Appellate Procedure •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 46
Enforcement Proceedings •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 47
-32-
IwwI
SIZE OF BOARDS
No Three Four Fl.ve Sl.X Seven Nl.ne
ARIZONA STATE BOARD Members Members Members Members Members Members Members
Accountancy X(l)
Barber Examiners X
Chiropody Examiners X
Chiropractic Examiners X
Cosmetology X
Examiners in Basic Sciences X
Health X
Insurance Department X
Medical Examiners X
Naturopathic Examiners X
Nurse Registration and
Nursing Education X(2)
Opticians. Dispensing X
Optometry X
Osteopathl.C Kegl.S1:ratl.on
and Examination X
Pharmacy X
Physical Therapy Examiners X
Real Estate X
Registrar of Contractors X(3)
Technical Registration X
Veterinary Examiners X ",.
(1) Plus a four-member advisory committee composed of public accountants.
(2) Plus a five-member group known as "Committee of Licensed Practical Nurses" who
combine with the Board of Nurse Registration and Nursing Education in regu­lating
the practice of practical nursing.
(3) Obviously not a board in the technical sense but included in the report because
of the great number of licenses issued yearly.
PERSONNEL El1PLOYED BY THE BOARD
(a) Court reporters hired when needed at hearings •
(b) She performs duties necessary to the operation of the board but is paid entirely from funds
donated by the Arizona Osteopathic Medical Association due to the fact that no legislative
appropriation is made to cover her salary.
(c) Paid on a per diem basis.
lAR~ZONA STATE BOARD
E,""
Secre- Clerks and IInvestigators
taries ·'Typists Examiners &Inspectors Others Total
Full Part Fulll Part Full Part Full Part Full Part Full Part
time time time time time time _time time time time time time
Accountancy 1 1
Barber Examiners 1 1 1 1
Chiropody Examiners 1 1
Chiropractic Examiners
(a)
none none
Cosmetology 1 2 3 1 5
Examiners in Basic Sciences 2 2
Health none none
Insurance Department 6 15 2 3 7 30 3
Medical Examiners 1 1 1 2 4 1
Naturopathic Examiners none none
Nurse Registration and
Nursing Education 4 1 3 7 1
Opticians. Dispensing 1 1
as
Optometry 1 needed 1
Osteopathic Registration (b) (C)
and Examination 1 1 l.t. 6
as
Pharmacy 1 "_. 1 3 needed 1 6 1
physical Therapy Examiners none none
~ea1 Estate 6 2 2 10 20
Registrar of Contractors 2 1 7 5 1 11 3 24 6
~echnica1 Registration 3 1 3 1
~eterinarv Examiners 1 . 1
Iw
.:::­I
Iw
\.Jl
I
RECEIPTS FOR FISCAL 1961=1962
Applica= License Examina= Renewal Fines and
lARIZONA STATE BOARD tion Fees Fees tion Fees Fees Penalties Others Total
lAccountancv $ $15.592.21 $ 5.095.00 $ $ 500.00 $ 2.825.00 $ 24.012.21
Barber Examiners 2.025.00 6.655.00 14.895.00 660.00 1. 6~6l6.00 25.901.00
Chiropody Examiners 150.00 30.00 175.00 190.00 545.00
Chiropractic Examiners 545.00 2.920.00 3.465.00
Cosmeto1ogv 17.385.00 9.380.00 22.606.00 4 797.50 54.168.50
Examiners in the (b)
Basic Sciences 1.180.00 12.700.00 13.880.00
Health 3.00 3.00
Insurance Department*
Medical Examiners 2.825.00 49.~3b.00 52.755.00
Naturopathic Examiners 375.00 120.00 300.00 720.00 15.00 1.530.00
Nurse Registration and
Nursing Education
~icensed Practical Nurse 6.175.00 5.222.00 30.00 11.427.00
Registered Nurse 30.265.00 21.025.00 90.00 51.380.00
~pticians. Dispensing 350.00 2.525.00 2.875.00
!ODtometry 1.375.00 220.00 3.420.00 200.00 5.215.00
Osteopathic Refistration
and Examinat on 2.525.00 5.325.00 50.00 2.484.00 150.00 10.534.00
Pharmacy 27.964.00 11.641.00 28.358.00 1 135.00 69.098.00
Phksical Therapy (d)
xaminers 240.00 240.00
Real Estate 29.010.00 23.300.00 22.860.00 126 780.00 5,065.40 207.015.40
(e)
Registrar of Contractors 81.350.00 2.396.00 128.670.00 255.00 6 052.25 218 723.25
Technical Registration 12.445.00 4.240.00 27.640.00 289.50 72.00 44.686.50
Veterinary Examiners 1.125.00 1 290.00 2.415.00
* The income and expense data from the Insurance Department can't be set out in the regular form.
That material, appears on a separate page following this graph.
(a) The largest item is fees for barber co11ege--$l,650.00.
(b) This figure represents the income from reciprocity fees.
(c) A breakdown of this figure follows: Reciprocity-$35.575.00; Temporary permits-$l,750.00; Endorse­ments-$
90.00; Registration fees-$11,965.00; Directory sales=$370.00; Miscellaneous-$l80.00
(d) This figure combines the total of application fees, license fees and examination fees.
(e) This figure combines the total of application fees and license fees.
RECEIPTS OF THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT 1962
PremiU1t1 Tax Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1962
1% Premium tax •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2% Pre'mi urn tax .•••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
3% Prem! urn tax •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1/2% Premium tax •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Retaliatory tax ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$ .103,758.49
3,625,532.66
34,871.18
244,430.62
153,354.32
.;;T..;o;..t,;.,;;a;.;l;;..._P_r_e_m__i_u..m T..a~x••••
Fees
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • $4,161,947.27
Annual statements ••••••••••���••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••• $
Certificates of authority ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Certificates of director •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Charter documents ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Copies of documents ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Documents filed ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Miscellaneous ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Penalties and fines ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Power of attorney ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rate filings •.•••••.••••...••••••.•.•.•••••••••••••.•••••..
Retali,atory •••.•••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Service of process •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
21,600.00
40,205.00
1,25+.00
2,870.00
2,029.65
612.06
0.00
3,186.00
364.00
5,985.00
8,758.00
2,580.00
Total Fees
License's
$
Adjusters ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , •••••••••••••••••• $
Agentsooo ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Brokers ••••• II ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Managing general agents ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rating organizations •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Service representatives ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$0 Ii c it 0 r s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Surplus line brokers •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Vending machines •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2,319.00
178,445.00
6,639.00
885.00
50.00
1,116.00
1,062.00
2,150.00
1,160.00
Total Lic·ense·s $
.-.--;."",,;~............-
$ 283,266.71
GRAND TOTAL
-35 a.-
I
LA>
0\
I
EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL 1961-1962
Personal I Rental
ARIZONA STATE BOARD Services Supplies Cost Equipment Other Total
Accountanc$ $12.027.29 $ 2.463.01 $2.236.89 $ 645.20 $ 1.187.95 $ 18.560.34
Barber Examiners 16.206.42 2.132.28 437.01 1.000.00 5.bZ4.89 24.820.60
Chiropody Examiners 120.00 24.00 45.86 189.86
Chiropractic Examiners 1.510.00 328.80 307.20 2.146.00
Cosmeto10gv 32.605.13 3.944.30 3.626.44 1.403.04 41.578.91
I,I!;Xam1ners 1n the
Basic Sciences 7.032.86 84.21 4.b~t07 11.209.14
Health NONE
Insurance Department*
Medical Examiners 22.424.50 4.828.97 3.437.40 1.095.72 5 j~8.39 37.124.98
Naturopathic Examiners 490.00 195.48 685.48
,Nurse f.{eg1.strat10n ana
Nursing Education
~ic~ns~d. Practical. Nur~e. ...(~). ~. (d) (d) .(d) .(d) .(d)
Registered Nurse 45.674.73 8 118.93 611.02 1.225.42 9.528.85 65.158.95
OPticians Dispensing 1.001.00 137.35 250.00 551.11 125.28 2.064.74
OPtometrv 3.618.20 200.42 637.04 4.455.66
Osteopathic Refistration
and Examinat on 1.620.00 960.12 1.520.00 173.68 .997.00 5.270.80
Pharmacy 31.200.00 6.035.46 1.902.00 10.293.84 2.66t80 52.100.10
Physical Therapy Examiners NONE
Real Estate 114.504.28 11.985.43 307.75 4.629.30 23 324.50 154.751.26
Registrar of Contractors (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)
Technical Registration 27 757.25 6.347.04 3.314.80 1.355.32 222.50 38.996.91
Veterinary Examiners 795.00 167.96 932.85 1.895.81 * The income and expense data from the Insurance Department can't be set out in the regular form.
That material, appears on a separate page following this graph.
(a) The largest items were: Travel-$3,942.74; OASI and Retirement-$991.15; Dues and Insurance-$111.00.
(b) Largest items: Books-$1,780.92; Printing and Mimeographing-$807.75.
(c) The major elements of this item are: Telephone-$1,055.09; Travel-$2,345.28.
(d) Since one staff performs the duties pertaining both to the registered nurses and the practical
nurses, it has only one list of expenditures. The figures which appear here, therefore, cover
the expenses of the administration of both practical and registered nurses.
(e) The largest item is OASI and Retirement-$1,775.23.
(f) The answer to this question was not in a form which would permit its inclusion in this graph. We
have reproduced the Registrar of Contractor's answer on page 36 b.
EXPENSES OF THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT 1962
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1962
Salaries and wageseo~o.o.o.o••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Capital outlay ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Out of State.o.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
officials and employees ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$168,270.00
30,700 0 00
1,500.00
1,200.00
1,900.00
3,398.00
9,900.00
6,750.00
500.00
.......................dues. .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
eo. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • 0 • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
organization
expenditures.
and
charges.
services.
State ••••••••
fixed
Other current
Subscriptions
Current
Bond
Travel
Travel
Professional
Total ••••••••• e ••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Amount reverted to general fund •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$224,118.00
5,249.51
Net amount expended ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
-36 a-
Attachment No. 1
IOOICUIPIlG DEPAR.t'M!1IT
,gSOMAL SDVICl8
Salarie'
O'J'HD CUIRIJ!T UflDITIY'
nM 1961-62
124,108 .02
Tel 6a Tel CG.
UtUiUa,
Trayal (Out of State)
Trayal
Po,t..a
l4Iuipll8Gt Mallltenaoca
Towl a.antal 6a La_dry
Adver tidlll
Advarti'iRI (Lelal)
Offica Suppu.a.
'abicla Supplia, (Tira.)
Janitor Supplia.
Yard Work
Other luppU...
Profa••~.l 'a••
',212.79
2,824.7J
732.52
12,715.75
2,960.03
4,074.01
180.15
8".30
125.42
8,747.51
588.99
310.1'
122.42
281.05
1·Y4.0~
Total ot~r currant • .,..ditara.
OTJ!D CUIlll!t rIUD C!UIU
44,369.22
It
Po.t..a Meter aaatal
load (A. H, &heMe.)
Car Insuranca
Liability la.uraaca
Sub,criptions
Contributioas St. a&t.
OASl
Total Currant fixed Charsa.
CAPITAl, OUn,AY
Office l4Iui,.ent
Electric Heatar
Autc.obUa.
Buildinl LMproy...nt.
Refund,
182.00
25.00
965.59
197.50
221.03
4,160.11
3.437,11
5,518.94
13.40
6,251.91
2,045.19
105·09
9,188.34
Total Capital Outlay
Total a.pen... for Yr. 1961-62
13.934.44
191,600.02
Contractor Fund
Total expenses
Balance forward
-36 b-
227,192.62
191.620.02
$ 35,592.60
Iw
-.:J
I
AMOUNT OF MONEY CARRIED IN THE BOARDS i ACCOUNTS
Do funds
revert Balance carried forward at end of fiscal year
at end
!ARIZONA STATE BOARD of vear? 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962
lAccountancy No $ 16 391.28 i$ 16.316.74 $ 14.359.32 $ 13.763.38 1$ 16.814.01
~arber Examiners No 22 613.59 20.936.49 20.257.66 16.307.68 15.033.47
Chiropody Examiners No unknown unknown unknown unknown 303.14
Chiropractic Examiners No unknown unknown 5.162.00 6.930.00 7.907.00
Cosmeto1ogv No 15.889.94 19.274.51 20.862.50 29.652.78 36.825.62
Examiners in the
Basic Sciences No 16.380.57 16.827.88 18.239.55 21 015.50 23.008.82
Health Yes
Insurance Department No ... 2,430,366.00 2. 715 , 381. 00 3.062.678.00 3.479,179.00 3,872.521. 00
Medical Examiners No 17.738.07 20.891.08 19 353.63 21.554.50 31.909.02
Naturopathic Examiners No 597.02 322.13 209.80 .20 439.72
Nurse Registration and
Nursing Education No 6.050.87 12.218.33 20.222.94 23 682.13 15.049.48
bpticians Dispensing No 0.00 685.03 1. 372.76 2.089.40 2.612.16
bptometrv No 2.910.93 4.418.44 5.608.47 6.095.50 6.333.34
psteopath1c Registration
and Examination No 7.501.45 9.734.16 10.483.62 12.989.21 17.199.01
~harmacy No 35.880.84 43.678.37 48.852.44 55.307.24 76.893.74
~hksica1 Therapy
xaminers No 61.01 136.64 128.62 241.12 457.12
!Real Estate No(l) 20.000.00 20.000.00 40.000.00 40.000.00 40.000.00
!Registrar of Contractors No 39.518.93 28.697.74 21.077 .15 30.341.84 35.592.60
~echnical Registration No 8.372.45 7.439.11 9 781.05 12,593.69 14.035.13
lVeterinarv Examiners Yes
(1) All funds in excess of $40,000.00 revert to the general fund.
EXAMINATION DATA
1. Board of Accountancy
License issued--CPA, PA, CPA PARTNERSHIP, PA PARTNERSHIP
Fiscal Year Applicants Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result-
Ending Examined By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
June 30 ination procity Successful Failu-.r..e..s.....
1958 142 13 35 9.2 None
1959 135 21 35 15.5 None
1960 163 30 35 18.3 None
1961 180 38 35 21.1 None
1962 181 27 35 14.4 None - -- ............
2. Board of Barber Examiners
License issued--BARBER, APPRENTICE, INSTRUCTOR,
ESTABLISHMENT AND DUPLICATE -
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
- Successful
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
1-
1
3
1
12
2
-
30 Board of Chiropody Examiners
License issued--CHIROPODY
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci~
ina~ion procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
*NoA o
*N.A.
1
4
8
*N.A.
*NoAo
o3
5
*NoA.
*NoA o
None
None
1
*N.A o
*N.A.
0.0
75.0
62.5
*NoA o
*NoA.
None
None
None
i~Not a-vai lable
-38-
...........
4. Board of Chiropractic Examiners
License issued--DOCTOR OF CHIROPRACTIC
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result=
ing From
Failures
1958 23 22 None 95.7 None
1959 33 33 None 100.0 None
1960 30 25 None 83.3 None
1961 47 24 None 51.1 None
1962 26 13 None 50.0 None
5. Board of Cosmetology
License issued--COSMETOLOGISTS t MANICURISTS AND INSTRUCTORS
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result~
ing From
Failuy;es
1958
1959
1960
• 1961
1962
330
389
392
591
622
262
288
279
300
551
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
**1001
79.7
71.5
71.2
50.8
88.6
None
None
None
None
None
*Not available
**Total to date
6. Board of Examiners in the Basic Sciences
License issued--CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
IN THE BASIC SCIENCES
Fiscal Year Applicants Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result=
Ending Examined By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
June 30 ination py;ocity Successful Failures
:
1958 168 110 *N.A. 65.5 None
1959 185 103 *N.A. 55.7 None
1960 197 131 *N.A. 66.5 None
1961 122 77 *N.A. 63.1 None
1962 81 56 **605 69.1 None
*Not available
**Total to date
-39-
-
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962 -
7. Board of Health
License issued--TO PRACTICE MIDWIFERY !!It =-==___ - - -
Applicants Licenses Issued Per Cent Of
Examined By Exam- By Reci- Examinees
ination procity _.Successful
10 10 None 100.0
0 0 None 0.0
a 0 None 0.0
0 0 None 0.0
3 3 None 100.0
=
8. Insurance Department of Arizona
-
-
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
_ £U&3!W±.
None
None
None
None
None
License issued--A~NTS, BROKERS, SOLICITORS, ADJUSTERS •
uw:aaa:!!s .j
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
~rocit~
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
,':3470
1·3500
1:3800
,':4200
f:2800
**N.A.
1:*N.A.
**N.A.
;'(*N.A.
'·"~N.A.
;'e*N.A.
;':*N.A.
1:*1:1000
1d:N.A.
1:*N.A.
1:*N.A.
**NoA.
62.9
None
None
None
None
None
;';Approximate
*1:Not available
;'d:;':Total to date
.... I rsa
9. Board of Medical Examiners
License issued--TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND SURGERY
lEa did e •
-.z -= e:ee:caa lit ::'Mati_. ..
1958 18
1959 27
1960 34
1961 39
962 33
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result-
ByExam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
ination procit~ Successful Failures
_eat.
17 ;'eN. A. 94 0 4 None
24 *NoA o 88 0 9 None
33 ;'eN • A. 97 0 1 None
31 1:N • A. 79.5 1
24 ;'0'e174 72.7 None
;":Not available
;',:;':Total to date
JI!!lIwt .!&Y&Jid!!:I..!:t
-40-
10. Board of Naturopathic Examiners
License issued--NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
1958 2 2 None 100.0 None
1959 3 3 None 100.0 None
1960 5 5 None 100.0 None
1961 1 1 None 100.0 None
1962 12 12 None 100.0 None
11. Board of Nurse Regis~rat~on and Nursing Education
Licensed Practical Nurse
License issued--LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE
Fiscal Year Applicants Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result-
Ending E.xamined By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
June 30 ination procity Successful Failures
1958 60 54 *N.A. 90.0 None
1959 105 101 "'N. A. 96.2 None
1960 138 130 *N.A. 94.2 None
1961 123 93 *N.A. 75.6 None
1962 158 **193 ***137 122.2 None
*Not available
**These figures vary because of change in examination dates and failures
who rewrote and were licensed the following fiscal year.
*i'*Total to date-
12. Board of Nurse Registration and Nursing Education
Registered Nurse
License issued--REGISTERED NURSE
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Applicants
Examined
157
133
138
123
167
Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result-
By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
ination procity Successful Failure
133 *N.A. 84.7 None
116 *N.A. 87.2 None
130 *N.A. 94.2 None
107 *N.A. 86.9 None
149 **876 89.2 None
*Not available
*icTotal to date
-41-
130 Board of Dispensing Opticians
License issued--DISPENSING OPTICIAN
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued By Exam- tiy Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
1958 7 7 None 100 0 0 None
1959 7 5 None 71 0 4 None
1960 7 6 None 85 0 7 None
1961 7 7 None 100 0 0 None
1962 8 8 None 100 0 0 None
14 0 Board of Optometry
License issued--TO PRACTICE OPTOMETRY
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result ..
ing From
Failures
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
21
30
29
27
29
11
13
16
17
11
*NoA.
i'NoA.
i;N. A0
i;N 0 A.
;'; i; 4
52.4
43.3
55.2
62.9
37. 9
None
None
None
None
None
*Not available
**Total to date
15. Board of Osteopathic Registration and Examination
In Medicine and Surgery
License issued--OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE AND SURGERY
Fiscal Year Applicants Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result-
Ending Examined By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
June 30 ination procity Successful Failures
1958 0 0 24 0.0 None
1959 0 0 45 0 0 0 None
1960 0 0 40 0.0 None
1961 1 1 44 100 0 0 None
1962 2 2 71 100.0 None
-42-
16. Board of Pharmacy
License issued--LICENTIATEIN PHARMACY -
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Z1Z
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
SLc£Sai:!*!!R '3k4Oliii! . $44iC!!
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
33
45
17
35
29
31
33
13
21
25
*N.A.
1(N. A•
*N.A.
*N.A.
128
93.9
73.3
76.5
60.0
86.2
None
None
None
None
None
'''N ot avai lable
17. Board of Physical Therapy Examiners
License issued--CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRY
it
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Applicants
Examined
Licenses Issued
By Exam- By Reci­ination
procity
Per Cent Of
Examinees
Successful
Appeals Result­ing
From
Failures
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
*N.A.
*N.A.
i(N • A•
*N.A.
1
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N. A.
1
1(N. A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
123
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
100.0
*N.A.
*N.A.
1(N • A.
1(N. A.
None
*Not available
18. Board of Real Estate
License issued--REAL ESTATE BROKER AND REAL ESTATE SALESBAN
yo
Fiscal Year Applicants Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result-
Ending Examined By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
June 30 ination procity Successful Failures
!!iSliil!
1958 2130 *1919 None 90.1 *'''N.A.
1959 1801 *2557 None 141.9 1d(N. A0
1960 4190 *3322 None 79.3 1n"N.A.
1961 2476 '''2589 None 104.6 *'''N.A.
1962 2005 *1799 None 89.7 **NoA o
*This apparent inconsistency is due to the fact that some individuals
hold more than one license. Each broker or salesman must have a li­cense;
furthermore, he mus1= have an additional license for each of
his offices, if he maintains more than one.
**Not available ... -_...
-43-
19. Board of Registrar of Contractors
License issued--CONTRACTORS
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30 -
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Applicants
Examined
-
*N.A.
*N.A.
**875
1450
1225
Licenses Issued Per Cent Of Appeals Result-
By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
ination procf..tL Successful Failures
968 None *N.A. None
1145 None ,';N. A. None
1310 None *N.A. None
1259 None 86.8 None
1191 None 97.2 None
,"Not available
**1-1-60 to 6-30-60
20. Board of Technical Registration
License issued--ARCHITECT, ASSAYER, ENGINEER, GEOLOGIST, LAND SURVEYOR,
ARCHITECT-IN-TRAINING, ENGINEER-IN-TRAINING, GEOLOGIST-IN-TRAINING
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Applicants
Examine d
199
204
279
221
256
Licenses Issued Pel' Cent Of Appeals Result-
By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
ination procity Successful Failures
129 ,"N 0 A• 64.8 None
139 . *N.A. 68.1 None
208 *N.A. 74.6 None
125 ,';N. A. 56.6 5
134 ,',*198 52.3 3
*Not available
**Total to date
21. Board of Veterinary Examiners
License ..issued--TO PRACTICE VETERINARY MEDICINE
Fiscal Year Applicants License Is sue d Per Cent Of Appeals Resu1t-
Ending Examined By Exam- By Reci- Examinees ing From
June 30 ination procity Successful Failures
1958 38 32 None 84.2 None
1959 46 33 None 71. 7 None
1960 39 23 None 58.9 None
1961 40 29 None 72.5 None
1962 44 32 None 72.7 None
-44-
ARIZONA STATE BOARD
Accountancy
Barber Examiners
Chiropody Examiners
Chiropractic Examiners
Cosmetology
Examiners in Basic Sciences
Health
Insurance Department
Medical Examiners
Naturopathic Examiners
Nurse Registration and Nursing Education
Practical Nurse
Registered Nurse
Opticians. Dispensing
Optometry
Osteopathic Registration and Examination
Pharmacy
Physical Therapy Examiners
Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
Technical Registration
Veterinary Examiners
*Approximate
-45-
LICENSE RENEWALS
751
2.982
31
289
4.785
o
17
*8.500
2.393
72
1.558
6.395
102
201
414
1.641
57
8.415
5.679
2.873
172
ARIZONA STATE BOARD
The following boards have an appellate procedure:
Cosmetology
Examiners in the Basic Sciences
Health
Naturopathic Examiners
Opticians, Dispensing
Optometry
Osteopathic Registration and Examination in Medicine and Surgery
Pharmacy
Physical Therapy Examiners
Registrar of Contractors
Technical Registration
The following boards do not have an appellate procedure:
Accountancy
Barber Examiners
Chiropody Examiners
Chiropractic Examiners
Insurance Department
Medical Examiners
Nurse Registration and Nursing Education
Real Estate
Veterinary Examiners
-46-
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
1. Board of Accountancy
Fiscal Year
Ending
June' 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Complaints
Received'
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
**35
Complaints
Investigat~d
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
**35
Suspensions From
Investigations
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
o
Revocations From
Investigations
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
o
*Not available
**Total from 1958 thru 1962; yearly figures ,were not available
2. Board of Barber Examiners
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Complaints
Received
58
9
66
165
223
Complaints
Investigated
58
9
66
165
223
Suspensions From
Investigations
oo
1
oo
Revocations From
Investigations
1
oo
1
o
3. Board of Chiropody Examiners
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Complaints
Received
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
oo
Complaints
Investigated
*N.A.
*N. A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
Suspensions From
Investigations
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
Revocations From
Investigations
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*Not a'vailable
-47-
•
4. Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Complaints
Received
Complaints
Investigated
Suspensions From
Investigations
Revocations From
Investigations
1958 0 0 0 0
1959 0 0 0 0
1960 0 0 0 0
1961 0 0 0 0
1962 9 9 3 5
Me ..-
5. Board of Cosmetology
..... w
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Complaints
Received
Complaints
Investigated
Suspensions From
Investigations
Revocations From
Investigations
1958 40 40 0 0
.. 1959 41 41 0 0 1960 45 45 0 0
1961 40 40 0 0
1962 36 36 2 3
6. Board of Examiners in the Basic Sciences
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Complaints
Received
Complaints
Investigated
Suspensions From
Investigations
Revocations From
Investigations
1958 *0 0 **N.P. 0
1959 *0 0 **N.P. 0
19QO *0 0 **N.P. 0
1961 *0 0 **N.P. 0
1962 *0 0 **N.P. 0
*All complaints to this board come from the particular professional
board involved. **Boar'd h'a's n'opro'c-e'd'ure f·o I' sus pen s i on
-48-
..
7 0 Board of Health
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Complaints
Received
Complaints
Investigated
Suspensions From
Investigations
Revocations From
Investigations
1958 0 0 0
1959 0 0 0
1960 0 0 0
1961 0 0 0
1962 0 0 0 - -
8. Insurance Department of Arizona
o
oo
1
o
-
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
., 1961
1962
*Approximate
Complaints
Received
*125
*150
*200
*200
*225
Complaints
Investigated
*125
*150
*200
*200
*225
Suspensions From
Investigations
oo
1
6
5
Revocations From
Investigations
... -
o1
2
4
4
9. Board of Medical Examiners
-- ........
.. !ewe
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Complaints
Received
Complaints
Investigated
Suspensions From
Investigations
Revocations From
Investigations
1958 19 19 1 0
1959 53 53 0 2
1960 9 9 0 0
1961 13 13 1 1
1962 23 23 0 3
... ,
-49-
•
10 0 Board of Naturopathic Examiners
*Not available - no information = possibly 5 to 10 per year - all
checked out by Preso ...or Secretary
110 Board of Nurse Registration and Nursing Education
Practical Nurse
-*--.,..
_.. - - ...-...
Fiscal Year Complaints Complaints Suspensions From Revocations From
Ending Received Investigated Investigations Investigations
June 30 -
1958 0 0 *0 **0
1959 1 1 *0 **0
1960 1 1 *0 **0
• 1961 3 3 *1 **0
1962 3 3 *0 **0
*Denials resulting from investigations
**Revo'cationsresultina, from hearings
12. Board of Nurse Registration and Nursing Education
Registered Nurse
- -
_.
.
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Complaints
Received
7
24
18
29
18
Complaints
Investigated
7
12
15
20
18
Suspensions From
Investigations
*0
*0
*3
*0
*3
Revocations From
Investigations
**2
**1
**4
**1
**2
*Denials resulting from investigations
* * Re v o'c'at ions .res ult i ng from 'hearin gs_
-50~
13. Board of Dispensing Opticians
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
J.960
1961
1962
Complaints
Received
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A o
*NoAo
3
Complaints
Investigated
*NoA.
*N.A o
*NoA o
*N.A o
3
Suspensions From
Investigations
*NoA.
*N.A.
*N.Ao
*NoA.
*NoA o
Revocations From
Investigations
*NoAo
*NoA o
*NoA"
*NoAo
*NoAo
*Not a-vailable
14. Board of Optometry
""'w.....
Fiscal. Year
Ending
June 30
Complaints
Received
Complaints
Investigated
Suspensions From
Investigations
Revocations From
Investigations
1958 6 1 0 1
1959 7 1 0 0
• 1960 5 1 0 0
1961 6 2 1 0
1962 4 2 1 0
15. Board of Osteopathic Registration and Exami~ation
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
Complaints
Received
Complaints
Investigated
Suspensions From
Investigations
Revocations From
Investigations
1958 0 0 0 0
1959 0 0 0 0
1960 0 0 0 0
1961 4 4 0 0
1962 0 0 0 0
i.
-51-
,
16. Board of Pharmacy
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Co:mp lai'n'ts
Received
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
Complaints
Investigated
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
Suspensions From
Investigations
ooo
1
3
Revocations From
Investigations
ooo
o
o
*Not a'vailable
17. Board of Physical Therapy Examiners
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
., 1960
1961
1962
Complaints
Received
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
Complaints
Investigated
*N.A.
*N.A.
*:N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
Suspensions From
Investigations
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A •
*N.A.
*N.A.
Revocations From
Investigations
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A o
*N.A.
*N.A.
*Not a'Yailable
18. Board of Real Estate
Fiscal Year
Ending
June 30
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Complaints
Received
*N.A.
*N.A.
*NoA.
*N.Ao
186
Complaints
Investigated
*NoA.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
182
Suspensions From
Investigations
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
2
Revocations From
Investigations
*N.Ao
*N.A.
*N.A.
*N.A.
2
*Not avai<lable
-52-