Laserfiche WebLink
process is markedly different from Colorado's administrative process and the Court should use <br />caution when using a federal case as a procedural example for a state matter. <br />9. The Southern Utah case is distinguishable from the matter before the Court. In <br />Southern Utah, OSM was not the final decision — maker, but instead only offered a <br />recommendation to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Id at 1234. See also, 30 <br />C.F.R. §746.13 (OSM shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a decision document <br />recommending approval, disapproval or conditional approval of the mining plan.) In Southern <br />Utah, OSM was acting as "staff' to the Secretary, meaning OSM's role was as fact finder for the <br />Secretary and its function was to assist the Secretary in making a final decision. OSM issued a <br />recommendation to approve the mining plan to the Secretary, therefore, OSM was a part of the <br />Secretary's decision making process. <br />10. In contrast, the Division's decision to approve PR -6 was a final decision subject <br />to administrative appeal. It was not a recommendation for Board consideration. Therefore, the <br />Division's role in the formal hearing was not as staff to assist the Board in making a final <br />decision, but as a party defending its final determination to approve PR -6. Plaintiffs assert that <br />the Division played an integral role in the Board's decision making process. Response at ¶8. <br />Although the Division was actively involved in the formal hearing as a party, the Division's <br />participation at the hearing was no more integral to the Board's decision making process than the <br />participation of Plaintiffs; both parties were afforded an opportunity to present its case to the <br />Board. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence the Board, not the Division, took final <br />agency action by approving PR -6. <br />11. Plaintiffs assert that, under C.R.S. §24 -4- 106(4), because the Division is not a <br />plaintiff in this matter that the Division must be named a defendant. Response at ¶10. The <br />purpose of the requirement that every party in an agency action not appearing as a plaintiff shall <br />be made a defendant is to ensure the complete and just adjudication of the rights of those having <br />an interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Cissell v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 38 <br />Colo. App, 560, 564 P.2d 124 (1977). The relevant language in C.R.S. §24 -4- 106(4) is a notice <br />provision that, in application, is overly inclusive to ensure that all interested parties to the <br />agency action are informed of and afforded the opportunity to participate in the judicial review <br />action to protect their interests. The intent of C.R.S. §24 -4- 106(4) is not to require that all <br />4 <br />