Arizona Open Meeting Law Violation by Mohave County

Answer

Comparison and Contrast of the Arizona APA and Federal APA
This paper compares and contrasts the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (the federal APA) and the Arizona’s Administrative Procedure Act (the federal APA). The Arizona APA is the law regulating procedures for state administrative or governing agencies to propose and provide rules and provides for judicial review of adjudications of agencies and other ultimate decisions within Arizona (Davis, 1960). Even though both the Arizona APA and the Federal APA werecreated to govern agencies, the two Acts differ from each other in four areas including oversight, rulemaking procedures, substantive principles for tax regulations, and mechanics, as well as adjudication.
The Arizona APA and Federal APA contrast each other in the area of oversight. The Arizona APA has increased oversight of agencies, while the level of oversight provided by the federal APA over agencies remains limited. For instance, agencies are required to post notices of individuals’ right to petition agencies on their websites for review of agencies’ practices (Arizona State Senate Issue Brief, 2018). On the contrary, the federal APA does not provide for this requirement. Therefore, I prefer the Arizona APA over the Federal APA as it provides a robust mechanism for checking against the excesses of agencies.
Apart from differing in terms of oversight, the Federal APA and the Arizona APA contract each other in terms of the rule making process. The Arizona APA has procedures and mechanisms for overruling agency action, thereby limiting both the rulemaking and adjudicatory mandate of administrative agencies (Ely &Thistle, 2009). In the Federal APA, the mechanism and procedures for overruling agency action are not clearly outlined, which in turn provides a leeway for agencies to exercise overboard mandate in adjudicatory and rulemaking matters. Therefore, the Arizona APA is more preferable to me based on its robust procedures for over overruling agency action.
Another difference between the two Acts lies in the principles for state tax regulations. The Arizona APA decides on the soundness or legality of the state tax regulations based on substantive principles that differ significantly from those employed by the federal APA (Ely & Thistle, 2009). Contrary to the Arizona APA, the Federal APA only provides a general guideline on the state tax regulations. Thus, my preference is on the Arizona APA based on its provision of a clearer guideline on state tax regulations, which ensures the fairness of ruling and judgment in case of any suit.
Whereas, the two Acts appear similar in nature, they contrast each other in terms of mechanics. For instance, the federal APA possesses two forms of rulemaking founded on the rigorousness or thoroughness of the procedures needed, including informal and formal (Asimow, 1996). On the other hand, the Arizona APA possesses three forms of rulemaking depending on the rulemaking’s timeframe including emergency, expedited, and regular. Furthermore, these two Acts differ from each other in terms of adjudication. For example, the Arizona APA possesses a rights bill that is over and beyond safeguards of the U.S. Constitution, whereas the Federal APA has a bill of rights that is limited by safeguards of the U.S. Constitution (Davis, 1960). As such, I prefer the Arizona APA to the Federal APA, as it is comprehensive in providing adequate protection of rights.
In conclusion, even though the Arizona APA and the Federal APA were established to govern agencies, these two Acts differ from each other in terms of mechanics, adjudication, rulemaking procedures, oversight, and substantive principles.