Laserfiche WebLink
~trat the Board should reconsider its decision in order to clarify <br />the decision. Contrary to the assertion of the Appellants on <br />page 5 of their Opposition, OSM has shown that the Board stated <br />the governing law in this matter in a confusing manner. As will <br />be discussed below, OSM believes that the Board should grant <br />reconsideration in order to clarify the governing law in this <br />matter. <br />First, on the final page of its decision, the Board twice <br />stated that it was basing its decision on the "present record" <br />when it decided to vacate the OSM Regional Director's 1995 <br />decision. Generally, however, review of an administrative <br />decision is based solely on the record in front of the <br />administrative decision maker. OSM's Petition thus asks the <br />Board to clarify whether it was conducting a de novo review that <br />considered evidence not before the Regional Director when he made <br />his decision in 1995 or whether it was conducting a review <br />limited to the evidence that was before the Regional Director in <br />1995. The Appellants' assertion that OSM is exaggerating the <br />role of the Colorado State court decision in the Board's ruling <br />supports the need for the Board to clarify this point. See <br />Opposition at 7. <br />Second, while the Board concluded that the State court's <br />finding of damage to the Appellants' residence establishes a <br />4 <br />