Understanding Administrative Fact-finding
| Publication year | 1991 |
| Pages | 1607 |
| Citation | Vol. 20 No. 8 Pg. 1607 |
1991, August, Pg. 1607. Understanding Administrative Fact-Finding
Whether involved in rule-making or adjudicative functions, administrative agencies on both the state(fn1) and local level consistently are required to make factual determinations. It is important for an advocate before an administrative body to understand the procedural framework in which factual findings occur.
However, the fact-finding process also involves considerations that are less easily identifiable. To be most effective, an advocate must understand matters such as the personalities and predilections of individual members of an agency, the interplay between the agency and its staff, the psychology of fact-finding and the specific politics of the agency. (In this context, "politics" refers not so much to the partisan political system as to the agency's competing constituencies and the pressures which may be brought to bear upon administrative bodies.)
These topics were the subject of a program presented by the Colorado Bar Association ("CBA") Administrative Law Committee at the CBA's annual convention in September 1990. This column synthesizes the views expressed by the author and the other members of that panel.(fn2) It is important to keep in mind that
It is not uncommon for certain members of a board or commission, by virtue of their length of service, technical expertise, powers of persuasion or other factors, to have more than average influence. Newer board members might look to more experienced members for guidance. Where a board or commission consists of both professional and lay members, lay members may defer to the professionals on technical matters. If influential board or commission members can be identified, an advocate must consider whether to design his or her presentation to persuade these individuals. It may be necessary to narrow this search for influence to specific issues: some board or commission members may be considered particularly influential on certain topics, although not on all subjects.
It is not always a simple matter to identify influential members of an agency. An advocate who deals with a board or commission on a continuing basis has an advantage in identifying these key members by virtue of observation over a period of time. Additionally, because some agency members may be prominent in a given field, their views on certain issues may have been published. If so, these views can be identified and addressed.
Finally, rather than influential individuals, an agency may be made up (at least on certain issues) of influential coalitions. When attempting to identify influential members, the advocate may also attempt to spot the groups of board or commission members who tend to have similar views on an issue. By persuading the coalition, the advocate is assured of that block of votes.
As mentioned above, the term "politics" in this article refers to the manner in which an agency reacts to and attempts to accommodate the interests of varying constituencies or holders of power. It is not uncommon for agencies to feel accountable to certain constituencies. These constituencies might be the regulated industry or profession, consumers, "the public," the agency's staff, certain governmental bodies or the
agency members...
To continue reading
Request your trial