1979-06-22_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

• a significant factor to the Board in evaluating the serious- ness of a particular objector ' s concerns. In summary, Plaintiffs' argument that finality alone entitles it to judicial review of the Board action in this case represents, in effect, an effort to abrogate the doc- trine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This is evident from the fact that finality can often occur without exhaustion and, indeed, as a direct result of a failure to exhaust. This effort is totally inconsistent with firmly established Colorado case law. Moreover, it would frustrate the fundamental principle that judicial review of adminis- trative action is to be based solely on the record which is made before the administrative agency. See , Section 24-4- 106 (7) , (8) , C.R.S. 1973; Stream v. Heckers 184 Colo. 149, 519 P. 2d 336 (1974) ; Silverstein and Ruland, Preparation of an Appeal from an Administrative Decision, The Colorado Lawyer 2305, (December 1975) . In fact; this case demon- strates that without an adjudicatory hearing an appropriate record for judicial review is difficult, if not impossible, to produce. See also, Section 24-4-104 (9) , C.R.S. 1973 (indicating that an adjudicatory hearing is an appropriate prior step to obtaining judicial review) . Plaintiffs ' unex- plained failure to request an adjudicatory hearing therefore mandates dismissal of their Complaint for failure to exhaust available and necessary administrative remedies. B. Plaintiffs were not "parties" to the adminis- trative Proceeding and Thus Have No Right to Commence an Action for Judicial Review. As a direct consequence of Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies, they have also failed to qualify as "parties" to the administrative proceeding before the MLRB, and therefore cannot maintain an action for judicial review under Section 24-4-106 , C.R.S. 1973 . The judicial review provisions of the state Administrative Procedure Act state that: -6-