Laserfiche WebLink
determination is limited to the record before the agency." Anderson v. Department <br />of Personnel, 756 P.2d 969, 978 (Colo. 1988). New evidence offered in an appeal <br />that had not been presented to the agency below should not be considered. Harris <br />v. District Court, 655 P.2d 398, 401 (Colo. 1982) (Trial court erred in admitting <br />complaints, statements and actions which occurred after the Board's decision being <br />appealed); Stream v. Heckers, 519 P.2d 336, 337 (Colo. 1974). <br />A. Post - Decision Evidence May Not Be Considered. <br />Despite quoting that portion of C.R.S. § 34- 33- 128(2) limiting review to the <br />record before the agency, the plaintiffs base an essential part of their arguments on <br />material that did not exist at the time PR -6 was approved. Specifically in their <br />statement of the record facts, plaintiffs reference a review of MLRB's PR -6 <br />decision issued by the federal Office of Surface Mining ( "OSM ") months after the <br />Board's decision to approve PR -6. See, e.g., Plaintiff's Opening Brief at pp. 6, 9 <br />and 24, and statements in ¶¶ 8, 15, 19 and 20. In those references, plaintiffs direct <br />the Court to documents prepared by OSM on July 15, 2011 (R. 8941 -70, referred <br />to in "Record Facts" ¶¶ 8 and 19; R. 8914 -8940, referred to in "Record Facts" ¶ <br />19) and on August 1, 2011 (R. 8912 -13, referred to in "Record Facts" ¶20). <br />Plaintiffs then rely on the after - the -fact OSM documents to argue that the Board <br />was arbitrary in relying on technical information regarding the use of Bench 1 <br />{00145923 2 ; 14 <br />