Laserfiche WebLink
The Board's decision to exclude the letters as evidence was a proper and reasonable <br />exercise of the Board's broad authority and should be upheld. <br />E. Plaintiffs' Attempt to Expand the Scope of this Court's Review to <br />Include Documents that Post -Date the November 17, 2010 Hearing is <br />Improper, and Unsupported by the Act and Case Law <br />The purpose of judicial review is for a reviewing court to affirm or deny an agency's <br />action based solely on the hearing record made before that agency. §34 -33- 128(2); § 24 -4- <br />106(6). Both the APA and the Act state that in every case of final agency action the <br />administrative record subject to judicial review is limited in scope to materials actually presented <br />to or considered by the Board at the administrative hearing. Id. The Act specifically defines the <br />scope, and clarifies the limits, of review by this Court: <br />The court shall hear such petition or complaint solely on the record <br />made before the board. (Emphasis added). § 34- 33- 128(2). <br />Similarly, under the APA, judicial review is necessarily limited to the administrative record that <br />was presented to and considered by the Board when it took action. § 24- 4- 106(6); See, e.g., <br />Colo. Ground Water Comm'n. v Eagle Peak Farms, Ltd., 919 P.2d 212, 216 (Colo. 1996) ( "APA <br />review of agency action, whether quasi - legislative or quasi-judicial, is based upon the agency <br />record. "); Bd. of County Commis v. Simmons, 494 P.2d 85 (1972) ( "In proceedings reviewing <br />an administrative action, the trial court is confined to a review of the record of hearing before the <br />agency. "). <br />Jim Boyd and discounting the probative value of the subsequent and contradictory November <br />letters. <br />30 <br />