Source: https://statelibraryofarizona.wordpress.com/state-agency-administrative-histories/administrative-histories-a-c/
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 03:47:25
Document Index: 501397339

Matched Legal Cases: ['§32', '§32', '§32', '§32', '§149', '§2527', '§14', '§32', '§2', '§2527', '§67', '§149', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§16', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§41', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§23', '§5', '§ 48', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 48', '§ 48', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§41', '§31', '§31', '§41', '§38', '§38', '§38', '§38', '§32', '§3', '§3', '§41']

Administrative Histories A-C | State Research Library Virtual Reference Desk
Administrative Histories A-C
ARIZONA STATE LIBRARY, ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC RECORDS A Division of the Arizona Secretary of State
Agency Histories A-C (as of September 02, 2016)
Administarion, Arizona Department of
Barbers, State Board of Child Safety, Department of Administrative Hearings, Office of Beauty Culturist Examiners, State Board of Children’s Colony Board, Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board
Beef Council, Arizona
Clean Elections Commission Authority
Agricultural Experiment Station, Arizona – University of Arizona
Colorado River Boundary Commission
Agriculture, Arizona Department of
Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission, Arizona State Colorado River Boundary Markers Division
Agriculture and Horticulture, Arizona Commission of
Commerce, Arizona Department of
Apiaries, Arizona Inspector of Commerce Authority, Arizona
Apprenticeship Council, Arizona Compensation Fund, State
Corporation Commission, Arizona
Arts, Arizona Commission on the Corrections, Department of
Auditor, Office of the State Cosmetology, State Board of
Cotton Research and Protection Council
Automobile Theft Authority (ATA)
The Board of Accountancy (Board) was established by Laws 1919, Chapter 57. Statutory authority for the Board is found at A.R.S. §§32-701 et seq.
The purpose of the Board is to “protect the public from unlawful, incompetent, unqualified or unprofessional certified public accountants or public accountants through certification, regulation and rehabilitation” (A.R.S. §32-703). The Board consists of seven members, appointed by the Governor, and must be residents of this state. Five members must be Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and two are public members, who do not hold certificates but who have professional or practical experience in accounting and finance. Board members serve terms of five years. The Board annually elects a president, secretary, and treasurer from among its members (A.R.S. §32-702).
The Board has many powers and duties, including issuing certificates to qualified applicants, establishing and maintaining high standards in the practice of accounting, and adopting procedures and rules concerning examination. The Board may also investigate complaints filed with the Board or on its own motion, and adopt procedures for disciplinary actions, hearings, and decisions (A.R.S. §32-703).
The Board was established in 1919 to regulate the practice of certified public accounting in Arizona. The Board originally consisted of three members, appointed by the Governor for staggered terms of three years. The Board had the power to determine the qualifications of people applying to become certified public accountants (CPA), to administer the examination, to waive the examination for qualified applicants, to decide whether to recognize CPA certificates from other states, to revoke a certificate, to prosecute people falsely claiming to be certified, and to prosecute certified CPAs who falsify records and audits. See Laws 1919, Chapter 57.
Laws 1922, Chapter 35, §149 required all fees and moneys received by the Board to be paid into the State General Fund. Additionally, all expenses, salaries, and costs incurred by the Board were to be paid from the General Fund. The sections relating to the Board were codified in the 1928 Arizona Revised Code, Chapter 58, Article 5, sections 2527 through 2532.
Laws 1933, Chapter 45, repealed Article 5 of Chapter 58 of the 1928 Revised Code and enacted a new Chapter 58, Article 5, establishing the Board of Accountancy. The reenacted Board consisted of five members, appointed by the Governor, for staggered terms of five years. Board members were also required to be citizens and residents of the state, a CPA under the Act or otherwise qualified according to law. This law reorganized Article 5 which defined the term “CPA”; provided that information acquired by accountants was considered confidential; and added more detail on examinations, waiver rules and procedures. These sections were codified at Chapter 58, Article 5, §§2527 through 2532 in the 1934 Supplement to the 1928 Revised Code.
Laws 1939, Chapter 89, authorized the recompilation of the Revised Code of 1928. In the 1939 Revised Code, the sections relating to the Board were renumbered; however, no substantive changes were made in the language of the statutes.
Laws 1949, Chapter 85 banned the use of any title or designation that may be confused with the title “Certified Public Accountant.”
Laws 1955, Chapter 15 added the “Public Accountants’ Advisory Committee” to advise the Board in matters affecting public accountants. The Committee consisted of four practicing public accountants, appointed by the Governor to four-year terms. The law renumbered several sections and added two new sections that prescribed ownership and custody of statements and working papers, and grandfathered those persons who were certified under previous law by providing a limited exemption from certification requirements.
Laws 1956, Chapter 129 authorized the publication and revision of the Arizona Revised Statutes by West Publishing. This caused the sections dealing with the Board to be renumbered.
Laws 1960, Chapter 68, defined the term “board,” provided for removal of Board or Committee members, required the Board to keep records of its proceedings, stated those records were admissible in court and required partnerships of certified public accountants and public accountants to register.
Laws 1970, Chapter 119, §14 stated that professional corporations shall be subject to the same requirements as certified public accountant partnerships.
Laws 1972, Chapter 146, removed the requirement to be 21 years old to become a CPA or Public Accountant.
Laws 1973, Chapter 130, changed the membership of the Board. Instead of having five CPAs, the Board would have four CPA members and one public member who serve 5-year terms. The law also required CPA applicants to be at least 18 years old.
Laws 1979, Chapter 109, amended A.R.S. §32-722 to add the requirement that applicants to become Public Accountants must be at least 18 years old. Additionally, this allowed the Board to request the Attorney General to bring actions to recover civil penalties imposed by the Board.
Laws 1980, Chapter 175, removed the designation “Public Accountant” and stated that after July 1, 1980, “the Board shall not issue a new certificate or otherwise qualify a person as a Public Accountant except as reinstatement after revocation of a certificate.” This meant that, going forward, the Board could only issue certificates for full CPAs.
Laws 1984, Chapter 55, §2, stated that the Board would have five CPA members and one public member, for six total members. Additionally, reciprocity was no longer granted for certificates from foreign countries.
Laws 2003, Chapter 82, repealed and renumbered several sections, and added new sections to replace the repealed sections. The law increased the Board to seven members, consisting of five CPAs and two public members. The term of office remained five years. The law also extended reciprocity to once again include certificates issued by foreign countries.
Laws 2013, Chapter 136 addressed certification requirements; the Uniform CPA Examination; limited reciprocity; fees; and revocation and reinstatement of certificates for individuals and firms.
Laws 2014, Chapter 136 modified regulations and qualifications pertaining to CPAs.
Laws 2015, Chapter 207 addressed CPA qualifications; certificate and registration status; and partnerships.
Arizona Revised Code, Chapter 58, Article 5, §§2527-2532 (1928)
Arizona Revised Code, §§67-601 et seq. (1939)
Laws 1919, Chapter 57
Laws 1922, Chapter 35, §149
Laws 1933, Chapter 45
Laws 1939, Chapter 89
Laws 1949, Chapter 85
Laws 1955, Chapter 15
Laws 1956, Chapter 129
Laws 1960, Chapter 68
Laws 1970, Chapter 119
Laws 1972, Chapter 146
Laws 1973, Chapter 130
Laws 1979, Chapter 109
Laws 1980, Chapter 175
Laws 1984, Chapter 55
Laws 2003, Chapter 82
Laws 2013, Chapter 136
Laws 2014, Chapter 136
Laws 2015, Chapter 207
RG 7 – Board of Accountancy
Administration, Arizona Department of (ADOA)
See also: Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records; Arizona Department of Weights and Measures
The Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) was established by Laws 1972, Chapter 141. Statutory authority for ADOA is found at A.R.S. §§41-701 et seq.
The purpose of ADOA is to provide support to the operation of state government. ADOA provides centralized support services to agencies, enabling the agencies to focus on their specific mission. ADOA also takes a leadership role in developing and implementing statewide solutions for efficiency (ADOA Strategic Plan).
ADOA is headed by a director, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, and serves at the pleasure of the Governor (A.R.S. §41-701).
ADOA is currently made up of the following divisions: General Accounting Office; General Services Division; State Procurement Office; Office of Employment and Population Statistics; Grants and Federal Resources; Governor’s Regulatory Review Council; Risk Management; Arizona Strategic Enterprise Technology Office; Human Resources Division; Benefit Services Division (https://doa.az.gov/divisions).
The agency currently administers several programs that were initially established as stand-alone agencies, as described in the History section that follows.
Governor McFarland’s state of the state address January 9, 1956 described the work of the “Arizona Surplus Property Agency,” an interim committee for distribution of surplus government property to schools, hospitals and other public institutions. He recommended the interim committee be made permanent. Laws 1956, Chapter 6 created the agency to provide information and assistance to eligible agencies to acquire federal surplus property. The law outlined duties and responsibilities of the agency; appropriated $50,000 to the Surplus Property Revolving Fund and transferred records and property from the agency established by Executive Order Number 55-N, dated July 27, 1955. The agency operated under the direction of the State Auditor, the State Treasurer and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Laws 1960, Chapter 97 established a State Department of Public Buildings Maintenance, outlined its powers and duties and provided for a superintendent appointed by the Governor to a five-year term. The Superintendent was responsible for capitol grounds and 25 specifically names offices. Unexpended funds made to the Capitol Buildings and Grounds were transferred to the Superintendent.
Laws 1968, Chapter 200 established the State Personnel Commission consisting of five members appointed by the Governor. The law transferred certain records, property and unexpended funds from the Merit System Board and Council to the Commissioner.
Laws 1972, Chapter 141 repealed Chapter 4 of Title 41, and enacted new Articles 1 through 8 of Chapter 4, Title 41, establishing the Department of Administration with an effective date of July 1, 1973. ADOA succeeded to powers and duties of the Department of Library and Archives, the Department of Public Buildings Maintenance, the Department of Finance, the State Personnel Commission, the Surplus Property Agency, the Board of History and Archives, and the Historical Advisory Commission. ADOA was originally organized into the following divisions: Data Processing; Finance; Library, Archives and Public Records; Personnel Administration; Public Buildings Maintenance; and Surplus Property.
Laws 1974, Chapter 200 converted the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures (DWM) to a division within the ADOA and transferred records, funds and personnel from DWM to ADOA. (Note: See history of the Department of Weights and Measures.)
Laws 1976, Chapter 104 removed the division of Library, Archives, and Public Records from ADOA and transferred related records, funds and personnel. The law established the Arizona Department of Library, Archives and Public Records within the Legislative branch. (Note: see history of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records.)
Laws 1982, Chapter 262, authorized the continuation of ADOA for ten years and clarified the legislative intent in creating the agency. The legislative intent stated that the “objectives of the department of administration are to oversee in a responsible, efficient, and effective manner state operations concerning automation, finance, personnel, public buildings, surplus property, weights and measures, and risk management.” Additionally, “Data Processing” was changed to “Automation” and the division of Risk Management was added.
Laws 1983, Chapter 98 was a lengthy measure that removed the statutory references to specific ADOA divisions and instead gave the director authority to establish, abolish, or reorganize the positions or organizational units within the Department. In addition, the law transferred the authority to create personnel rules from the Personnel Board to the ADOA Director. That same year, Laws 1983, Chapter 316 required the ADOA Director to administer emergency telecommunication services and to recommend to the Joint Legislative Tax Committee the annual excise tax for the following year.
Laws 1987, Chapter 314, created the Department of Weights and Measures as a separate agency, thus removing the authority of weights and measures from ADOA.
Laws 1996, Chapter 256, added A.R.S. §41-703 which specified the duties of the Director and modified existing provisions related to travel reductions plans; liability claims; collection of rental fees; and capital improvement plans.
Laws 1999, Chapter 300 was an omnibus bill that made numerous modifications to the functions and duties of the ADOA. Those changes related to alternative fuels, state vehicles, employee benefits, accounting and budgeting, the Governor’s Regulatory Review Commission five-year-review reports, the appeals process, an extension to finalize the proposed Agricultural monument in Wesley Bolin Plaza, prison sites, and changed the name of the State Personnel Commission to the Human Resources Division.
Laws 2008, Chapter 73 authorized the ADOA Director to administer and distribute monies from the Racing Investigation Fund, which are made according to instructions from the Director of the Arizona Department of Racing.
Laws 2012, Chapter 321, added Article 4, creating the State Personnel System, overseen by the State Personnel Board.
Arizona Revised Statutes §§41-701 et seq.
Laws 1956, Chapter 6
Laws 1960, Chapter 97
Laws 1982, Chapter 262
Laws 1983, Chapter 98 and Chapter 316
Laws 1996, Chapter 256
Laws 1999, Chapter 300
Laws 2008, Chapter 73
Governor McFarland Executive Order No. 55-N. July 27, 1955. www.azmemory.azlibrary.gov
ADOA Strategic Plan, FY2016-FY2020, Kathy Peckardt, Interim Director, https://doa.az.gov/
Record Group 8 – Department of Administration
Record Group 15 – State Auditor (precursor to Department of Finance)
Record Group 33 – Board of Curators
Record Group 62 – Board of Control (precursor to Public Buildings)
Record Group 71 – Personnel Commission
Record Group 83 – Surplus Property Purchasing Agency
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was established in 1995 by Laws 1995, Chapter 251. Statutory authority for the OAH is found at A.R.S.§§41-1092 et seq.
According to its establishing act, the purpose of the OAH “is to ensure that the public receives fair and independent administrative hearings” (Laws 1995, Chapter 251, §16). Prior to enactment of the 1995 legislation, each state agency, board, or commission conducted its own administrative hearings. These agency-by-agency hearings were often conducted in their offices, which implied a home field advantage for the agency. Therefore, the OAH was created to take the hearings out of the individual agencies and enhance the fairness of the hearing process. State agencies that are supported by the State General Fund must use the OAH, and other agencies must contract with the Office for services. A few agencies are exempted by statute (Arizona Auditor General Performance Audit and Sunset Review Report, 2014). A director appointed by the Governor oversees the OAH.
The OAH hears all appealable agency actions and all contested cases, unless the action or case arose with one of the exempted agencies (A.R.S.§41-1092.02). An “appealable agency action” is “an action that determines the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party and that is not a contested case” (A.R.S.§41-1092). Additionally, “appealable agency action” does not include “interim orders by self-supporting regulatory boards, rules, orders, standards or statements of policy of general application” (A.R.S.§41-1092). A “contested case” is “any proceeding, including rate making, except rate making pursuant to article XV, Constitution of Arizona, (relating to Corporation Commission) price fixing, and licensing, in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required or permitted by law, other than this chapter, to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for an administrative hearing” (A.R.S.§41-1001).
As of January 2015, there are 33 statutorily exempted self-supporting regulatory boards listed in A.R.S. §41-1092:
(a) The Arizona state board of accountancy.
(e) The Arizona state boxing and mixed martial arts commission.
(k) The board of homeopathic and integrated medicine examiners.
(l) The Arizona medical board.
(m) The naturopathic physicians medical board.
(v) The board of physical therapy.
The state board of podiatry examiners.
(aa) The office of pest management.
(ee) The Arizona regulatory board of physician assistants.
(ff) The board of athletic training.
(gg) The board of massage therapy.
As of January 2015, 15 other agencies are currently exempted pursuant to A.R.S.§41-1092.02:
The industrial commission of Arizona.
The Arizona board of regents and institutions under its jurisdiction.
The state personnel board.
The department of economic security except as provided in section 46-458.
The department of revenue regarding:
(a) Income tax or withholding tax.
(b) Any tax issue related to information associated with the reporting of income tax or withholding tax unless the taxpayer requests in writing that this article apply and waives confidentiality under Title 42, chapter 2, article 1.
The state board of education, but only in connection with contested cases and appealable agency actions related to applications for issuance or renewal of a certificate and discipline of certificate holders pursuant to sections 15-203, 15-534, 15-534.01, 15-535, 15-545 and 15-550.
The board of fingerprinting.
The department of child safety except as provided in sections 8-506.01 and 8-811.
Regulatory reform was a central theme in the Arizona legislature in the 1990s. A 15-member joint study committee on regulatory reform and enforcement was established in 1994 (Laws 1994, Chapter 363). The duties of the study committee were expanded in 1995 to include an examination of the procedures used by state agencies to conduct administrative appeals, and to review models for a uniform state administrative appeals process (Laws 1995, Chapter 251). The creation of the Office of Administrative Hearings was one of the many outcomes of the larger process of regulatory review. For more about the joint study committee, see the “Ad Hoc Regulatory Reform and Enforcement Study Committee Report” dated December 1995, available at the Arizona Memory Project website. Subsequent reports are also available.
Laws 1995, Chapter 251 created the Office of Administrative Hearings. The OAH is overseen by a director who is appointed by the Governor, and must be qualified to serve as the chief administrative law judge. The director is authorized to adopt rules for carrying out the duties and powers of Title 41, Chapter 10, Article 6 (related to adjudicative hearings) and Article10 (related to uniform administrative hearing procedures).
Laws 1996, Chapter 102 revised the rules of notice and procedure, and provided for judicial review of OAH actions.
Laws 1997, Chapter 221 conformed state agency statutes to the uniform administrative appeals process and directed penalties imposed by state agencies to the state general fund.
Laws 1998, Chapter 57 required state agencies to provide subject matter training to the administrative law judge assigned to each agency.
A.R.S.§41-1001
A.R.S.§§41-1092 et seq.
Laws 1996, Chapter 102
Laws 1997, Chapter 221
See sunset review report: http://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/14-104_Report_0.pdf
See OAH website for more information: www.azoah.com
Ad Hoc Regulatory and Enforcement Study Committee Report – 1995. Arizona Memory Project: http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/cdm/ref/collection/statepubs/id/18147
Related Collections (Arizona State Archives)
ADH1 – Office of Administrative Hearings
Established January 1, 1991 by Laws 1989, Chapter 162, (A.R.S. § 3-101 et seq). Assumed responsibility for several stand-alone agencies.
Regulates and supports Arizona agriculture in order to encourage farming, ranching, and agribusiness while protecting consumers and natural resources. The Department of Agriculture is an executive agency headed by an appointed director. A.R.S. § 3-102 establishes three divisions: Animal Services Division, Plant Industries Division, and Chemicals Division.
The Animal Services Division is responsible for milk, dairy, livestock and aquaculture regulation, the state veterinarian, meat, poultry and egg inspection and the administrative functions authorized or contracted pursuant to law for the Arizona Beef Council.
The Plant Services Division is responsible for the fruit and vegetable standardization program and entomological services.
The Environmental Services Division is responsible for regulating seed, feed and agricultural chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers, and for native plant protection.
Statute also established, separate from the divisions of the Department, a State Agricultural Laboratory, an Office of Agriculture Safety, an Office of Inspections, and an Office of Commodity Development and Promotion.
Enacted in 1989 with an effective date of January 1, 1991 (Laws 1989, Chapter 162), the Department assumed the responsibilities of several stand-alone agencies, including the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture, the Arizona Livestock Sanitary Board, the State Veterinarian, the State Egg Inspection Board and the State Dairy Commissioner. Some of these agencies had existed since territorial days. The legislation included an effective date of January 1, 1991 in order to provide a transition period for the affected boards and commissions. In 2008, the Office of Pest Management was established as part of the Department, replacing the Structural Pest Control Commission.
As of 2014, Department responsibilities include:
Agricultural Chemicals (previously with Agriculture and Horticulture).
Agricultural Consultation and Training Program (ACTP) Created in 1994, this program is responsible for increasing voluntary compliance and awareness of regulatory requirements and providing educational information on pesticide safety, air quality, and agricultural conservation. According to the Department, this compliance assistance program is unique to an agricultural regulatory agency. The program is not part of any of the Department’s enforcement programs, allowing the agricultural community to request assistance without regulatory intervention. The Agricultural Employment Relations Board contracts with the ACTP to provide administrative services.
Agriculture Lab (State) is responsible for analyzing seed samples. (Previously with Agriculture and Horticulture; associated with the State Chemist.)
Antiquities Act Enforcement
Chemist, State (Previously the Office of the State Chemist and the State Agriculture Lab.)
Citrus Fruit and Vegetable Standardization and Fresh Produce Grade Inspection Two programs, the Citrus Standardization Inspection Program and the Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Program were combined in 1989. (Previously with Agriculture and Horticulture).
Dairy (Previously the State Dairy Commissioner, a stand-alone commission.)
Egg Inspection (Previously the State Egg Inspection Board, a stand-alone board.)
Environmental Services (previously with Agriculture and Horticulture). Handles agency licensing and seed sampling. Responsible for quality control of seed, feed, fertilizer and pesticides sold in Arizona.
Inspection and quarantine of plant pests (previously with Agriculture and Horticulture).
Livestock (Previously the Livestock Sanitary Board, a stand-alone board.)
Native Plant law enforcement (previously with Agriculture and Horticulture).
Office of Pest Management (previously Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission). Laws 2008, Chapter 309 established the Office of Pest Management within the Department of Agriculture.
Pesticide Control, Board of (previously Board of Pest Control Applicators from 1953 until 1986 when it was absorbed by the Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture.
Quality control of seed, feed, fertilizer and pesticides sold in Arizona (previously with Agriculture and Horticulture).
Research and promotional councils – Administered by the Agricultural Consultation and Training Program include the following: Livestock and Crop Conservation Grant Program; Specialty Crop Block Grant Program; Arizona Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Council; Cotton Research and Protection Council; Grain Research and Promotion Council, Arizona Citrus Research Council; Arizona Agricultural Protection Commission; and the Arizona Iceberg Lettuce Research Council. (Note: the Arizona Iceberg Lettuce Promotion Council was repealed by the Legislature in 1994)
State Veterinarian The Arizona State Veterinarian has always been affiliated with the Arizona Livestock Board.
Apiary program (A.R.S. § 3-801, repealed by Laws 1994, Chapter 337)
Date Standardization (A.R.S. § 3-471, repealed by Laws 2001, Chapter 246)
Pecan Standardization (A.R.S. § 3-531, repealed by Laws 2001, Chapter 246)
Wine Commission (A.R.S. § 3-551, repealed by Laws 2003, Chapter 227, effective January. 1, 2005)
Annual Report 1991. Annual reports are available at http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov. Older issues are available at the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records.
Master List of State Programs (www.ospb.state.az.us)
A.R.S. § 3-101 et seq.
http://www.asda.gov
Related collections at the Arizona State Archives:
Department of Agriculture (RG 9)
State Chemist (RG 22)
Office of the State Dairy Commissioner (RG 34)
Fruit and Vegetable Standardization Service (RG 45)
Livestock Sanitary Board (RG 60)
Board of Pesticide Control (RG 72)
Sheep Sanitary Commission (RG 81)
State Legislature (RG 97)
Environmental Quality (RG 147)
Hudson Cotton (MG 122)
Supima Association of America (MG 123)
Established in 1972 (Laws 1972, chapter 137); reestablished in 1993 (Laws 1993, Chapter 139). Arizona laws regarding the Agricultural Employment Relations Board (AERB) are found in A.R.S. Title 23 (Labor) at A.R.S. § 23-1381 et seq. The AERB contracts with the Arizona Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Consultation and Training Program for administrative support.
Legislative declaration of policy states the Board is “to foster labor peace, to provide a forum for this state’s agricultural industry and employees to resolve labor disputes and to develop more constructive labor relations.”
The AERB was established in 1972, allowed to sunset in 1993 and was reestablished that same year. See Laws 1993, Chapter 139.
A.R.S. § 23-1381 et seq.
Arizona Memory Project, Auditor General Performance Audit No. 79-7
Related material at Archives:
Governor’s Papers (Record Group 1. For AERB, particularly Gov. Williams and Gov. Castro)
Legislative oral history with Joe Eddie Lopez (Oral History 1 for AERB)
Agricultural Employment Relations Board (Record Group 9, SG 4, S1)
Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station – University of Arizona
The Hatch Act of 1887, enacted by the U.S. Congress (March 2, 1887, Chapter 314, 24 Stat 440) provides federal funding to state land grant colleges and universities to establish agricultural experiment stations. The University of Arizona is the state’s land grant college.
Arizona’s agricultural experiment station is administered by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Arizona. Agricultural research activities occur on campus and at agricultural centers across the state. Projects include various aspects of environment and natural resources; animal and plant systems; family, youth and community; trade and economics; and human nutrition, food safety and health. Hatch Projects approved by the United States Department of Agriculture receive federal, state and sponsored funds.
The Hatch Act of 1887, enacted by the U.S. Congress, established the agricultural experiment station system in order to support agricultural research at state land grant institutions. The Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station was founded as part of the federal agricultural experiment station system.
As of May 2014, the Experiment Station manages eight centers: Campus Agricultural Center, Maricopa Agricultural Center, Red Rock Agricultural Center, Safford Agricultural Center, Santa Rita Experiment Center Station, V Bar V Ranch, West Campus Agricultural Center, and the Yuma Agricultural Center.
http://cals.arizona.edu/aes
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture (1909-1991)
See: Arizona Department of Agriculture
Established in 1909 by the 25th legislative assembly of the Territory of Arizona as the Arizona Horticultural Commission, Chapter 30. Duties were assumed by the Arizona Department of Agriculture (Laws 1989, Chapter 162, effective 1991).
Protected the agricultural and horticultural interests of the Territory of Arizona by operating inspection stations, collecting nursery certifications and inspection fees, and prohibiting entrance into Arizona of any materials likely to contain or harbor pests or weeds.
Name changed from Arizona Horticultural Commission in 1912. The Office of the State Entomologist worked through this commission. Commission terminated in 1991, replaced by the Arizona Department of Agriculture. (See Laws 1989, Chapter 162; A.R.S. § 3-101 et seq.; and Arizona Department of Agriculture, this document)
Arizona Inspector of Apiaries
Authority – Repealed:
A.R.S. Title 3, Chapter 6, “Bees and Apiaries” (A.R.S. §§ 3-801 to 3-807) repealed by Laws 1994, Chapter 337.
The State Entomologist appointed an apiary inspector to inspect apiaries for contagious bee diseases, parasites and pests. A certificate of inspection was required in order to ship or move honeybees into the state. Shipment of used or secondhand beekeeping equipment was prohibited, except as prescribed by rules adopted by the Agriculture and Horticulture Commission.
Originally established in 1913 and amended by Laws 1921, Chapter 84.
Originally established by Executive Order of Governor Samuel Goddard in 1966 as the Arizona Commission on the Arts and Humanities. Codified by Laws 1967, Chapter 132. The name was changed in 1982 to the Arizona Commission on the Arts (Laws 1982, Chapter 193). See A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 5, Article 6 (A.R.S. § 41-981 et seq).
The Commission’s main purpose is to encourage the presentation and appreciation of the performing and fine arts in Arizona. The Commission provides financial support in the form of grants to help pay arts organizations’ administrative expenses and to help fund arts education and other artistic projects throughout the State. The Commission’s existence also makes Arizona eligible to receive and disburse federal funding for the arts from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The NEA has consistently ranked the Commission as one of the best arts commissions in the country. (Auditor General Report, 2001).
The Commission consists of 15 members, appointed to three-year terms by the Governor.
When Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965, they also provided funding to all state governments to form state arts commissions and asked them to conduct surveys of each state’s existing facilities, organizations and individuals engaged in the arts. Governor Samuel P. Goddard established the Arizona Commission on the Arts and Humanities as a state council by executive order on January 24, 1966. The Legislature established the Arizona Commission on the Arts and Humanities as a permanent state agency, and Governor Jack Williams signed the bill on March 13, 1967 (Laws 1967, Chapter 132).
The mission of the commission changed when the Arizona Humanities Council was created in 1973 as a result of the establishment of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Humanities Council funds and directs programs that promote better understanding of the human condition in four program areas: heritage, books and reading, community dialogue, and teacher education.
The Arts Commission became the official agency of the State of Arizona to stimulate and encourage public interest in cultural resources, performing arts and fine arts. In 1982 the name of the agency was changed to the Arizona Commission on the Arts. The agency has been subject to sunset review several times since it was created and was continued by Legislative action in 1992, 2002 and 2012. In 2012 the continuation legislation also established the Office of the Poet Laureate under the Commission on the Arts (Laws 2012, Chapter 325).
A.R.S. § 41-981 et seq.
http://az.arts.asu.edu/artscomm
Arizona Commission on the Arts Report to the Governor 2008
Office of the State Auditor(1912-1969)
See: Department of Administration
The Office of the State Auditor was abolished and powers were transferred to Commissioner of Finance January 2, 1969 (Laws 1968, Chapter 89). The Department of Administration was reorganized in 1972 and assumed the duties of the Department of Finance (Laws 1972, Chapter 141, Sections 74 to 76).
The Office of the Auditor General was established on January 1, 1969. It succeeded to the powers of the Office of the State Examiner (established in 1912) and the Office of the Post Auditor (established in 1950). Current statutory authority for the Auditor General is found at A.R.S. §§41-1278 et seq.
The Office of the Auditor General is part of the Legislative branch of government. The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and must be approved by a concurrent resolution of the Legislature. The Auditor General must be a certified public accountant, licensed to practice in Arizona (A.R.S. §41-1279.01). The Office conducts sunset audits and performance evaluations of state agencies, state programs, counties, community college districts and school districts; determines agency compliance with federal and state law; conducts audits, special audits and post audits of units of government; conducts special research requests and issues reports containing the results of the reviews and audits.
Laws 1912, First Special Session, Chapter 17 created the office of the State Examiner, responsible for establishing and enforcing a uniform system of bookkeeping, requiring a periodic statement of accounts, and making unannounced investigations of the books, accounts and vouchers of county offices and precinct officers. The law established penalties for misleading or obstructing the State Examiner. An annual report was required to be provided to the Governor in December. The State Examiner was required to be an accountant and was appointed by the Governor to a term of two years.
In 1922, the Legislature adopted the state financial code which stated that all expenses of state agencies would be paid from the State General Fund according to provisions of the general appropriations bill. Laws 1922, Chapter 35 made conforming changes throughout statute, including revisions to the statutory authority of the State Examiner.
Laws 1950, First Special Session, Chapter 28 established the position of Post Auditor, an accountant with experience in governmental accounting and auditing, appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, with the advice and consent of a majority of the two chambers. The Post Auditor was responsible for examining the accounts and financial practices of all state departments, institutions, boards and commissions and providing information to the legislature as guidance in formulating legislative policies, legislation and appropriations. The law also transferred certain duties from the State Auditor to the Post Auditor. Those included the responsibility to prescribe a uniform system of accounting for agencies, boards and commissions; to examine all records of public funds; to audit the amount of taxes collected by counties; and to file all audit reports with the Governor and Legislature.
Two measures were adopted in 1996 that affected the Post Auditor. The first measure, Laws 1966 Chapter 95, created the Department of Finance and transferred certain duties of the Post Auditor to the newly established Commissioner of Finance. (Note: the powers and duties of the Department of Finance were transferred to the Arizona Department of Administration in 1972. See history of the ADOA for additional information
The second measure enacted in 1966 required a request from the Legislature in order to trigger an examination of accounts or financial practices of state agencies. The law also established the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (see Laws 1966, Chapter 96).
Laws 1968, Chapter 87 established the Office of the Auditor General as a legislative agency, providing for appointment by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). The law transferred some of the powers and duties of the State Auditor to the Auditor General. In addition the office of the Post Auditor was abolished and all powers, duties, property and funds were transferred to the Office of the Auditor General, effective January 1, 1969.
The same year, the Office of the State Examiner was abolished and powers, duties, property and records were transferred to the Office of the Auditor General. See Laws 1968, Chapter 177.
Laws 1981, Chapter 317 required the appointment of the Auditor General to be approved by a concurrent resolution of the Legislature. The law also, as part of the ability to examine records, authorized the Auditor General to attend executive sessions of the governing body of a state agency and to access state tax returns. The measure emphasized the Auditor General could not violate the confidentiality of state tax laws. In addition, the Auditor General was required to prescribe a uniform expenditure reporting system for political subdivisions that were subject to constitutional expenditure limitations, including counties, community college districts and cities and towns. A report to the Legislature outlining implementation of the uniform expenditure reporting system with recommendations for improvement was due by December 31, 1981.
Laws 1982 Chapter 110 modified the powers and duties of the Auditor General with respect to personnel, audits and contents of reports. The law also authorized audits of community college districts. That same year, the Auditor General was required to prescribe a uniform system of accounting for community college districts and to work in conjunction with the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges (See Laws 1982, Chapter 196).
Laws 1985, Chapter 129 allowed the Auditor General to obtain criminal history record information for employment of personnel by the Office and to obtain information on persons committed to the Arizona Department of Corrections.
Laws 1992, Chapter 56 established the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC), replacing the former Joint Legislative Oversight Committee, and transferred certain responsibilities related to the Auditor General from JLBC. The JLAC was authorized to oversee all audit functions; to appoint the Auditor General; direct audits and investigations; require agencies to comply with its findings and directions; and was given the power of legislative subpoena. In addition the Auditor General was required to prepare an audit plan and a report of each audit, investigation or review for approval by JLAC.
Two other measures related to the Auditor General were enacted that same year. Laws 1992, Chapter 133 appropriated $9,000 to the Auditor General to cover the cost of a study of the University of Arizona College of Medicine. The report was due to the Governor and Legislature no later than March 1, 1993.
Laws 1992, Chapter 170 required the Auditor General to review and report on expenditures of the transportation excise tax. Those reporting requirements were expanded by Laws 1996, Chapter 206.
Laws 2002, Chapter 164 required the Auditor General to perform special research requests made by JLAC. The law provided that information contained in special research request working files and audit papers were not a public record and not subject to disclosure.
Laws 2010, Chapter 5 required the Auditor General to conduct a special audit of the Tourism and Sports Authority, including contracts, procurement, financing, cash flow projections and bonds. A report was required to be provided to the Governor and the Legislature by December 31, 2010.
Laws 2014, Chapter 229 established a termination date of July 1, 2018 for JLAC.
Arizona Revised Statutes §§41-1278 et seq.
Laws 1912, First Special Session, Chapter 17
Laws 1950, First Special Session, Chapter 28
Laws 1966, Chapter 95 and Chapter 96
Laws 1968, Chapter 87 and Chapter 177
Laws 1981, Chapter 317
Laws 1982, Chapter 110 and Chapter 196
Laws 1985, Chapter 129
Laws 1992, Chapter 56, Chapter 133 and Chapter 170
Laws 1996, Chapter 206
Laws 2002, Chapter 164
Laws 2010, Chapter 5
Laws 2014, Chapter 229
Arizona Auditor General website: www.azauditor.gov
The Automobile Theft Authority was established in 1992 to deter vehicle theft and support law enforcement activities. Statutory authority is found at A.R.S. §§41-3451 through 41-3453.
The ATA supports law enforcement activities and implements public awareness and community education programs to reduce the incidence of automobile theft in Arizona. The ATA consists of twelve members, representing law enforcement, counties, insurers, the general public and state agencies serve four-year terms. The ATA is authorized to hire staff, including an executive director.
The ATA is responsible for determining the scope of motor vehicle theft; analyzing methods to combat the problem; and developing a plan of operation and a financial plan. The ATA administers the Automobile Theft Authority Fund which consists of a mandatory $1 per year assessment collected as part of motor vehicle liability insurances policies issued in Arizona. Monies in the fund are allocated to public agencies to support auto theft prevention programs, prosecution efforts and public education. ATA is required to provide an annual report of its activities for the previous fiscal year to the Governor, Legislature and Secretary of State by December 31.
Laws 1992, Chapter 75 established the Automobile Theft Prevention Authority (ATPA) to provide funding and assistance to law enforcement entities in their efforts to reduce the incidence of automobile theft. The measure outlined responsibilities and created the Automobile Theft Authority Fund. The ATPA consisted of nine members appointed to four-year terms.
Laws 1994, Chapter 324 increased the number of ATPA members to ten, adding a representative from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division.
Laws 1996, Chapter 263 changed the name of the Automobile Theft Prevention Authority to the Automobile Theft Authority; modified membership of the ATA, added a representative from the Arizona Department of Public Safety and reduced the number of members to nine; capped the executive director’s salary at $75,000; changed the annual report due date from September 1 to December 31 of each year; added a process to remove a member of the ATA; implemented a fee on insurers based on automobile insurance policies as a source of funding for the Automobile Theft Authority Fund; and included an appropriation. The measure also established the Automobile Theft Authority Committee, consisting of eight members (six legislators, a representative of the Governor’s office and a representative of the Arizona Department of Insurance) to review the effectiveness of the program, need for funding, and impacts on auto theft rates and insurance costs. Note: The Committee was repealed by Laws 1999, Chapter 262, effective January 1, 2004.
Laws 2000, Chapter 186 increased the number of ATA members from nine to twelve and appropriated $150,000 from the Vehicle Inspection and Title Enforcement Fund to the Automobile Theft Authority Fund to educate the public about auto theft, border enforcement and to provide funding to prosecute automobile theft.
Laws 2008, Chapter 188 provided that personal information or vehicle information submitted to ATA is confidential, and not subject to public disclosure.
Laws 1992, Chapter 75
Laws 1996, Chapter 263
Laws 1999, Chapter 262
Laws 2000, Chapter 186
Laws 2008, Chapter 188
Related collections at Arizona State Archives: RG 166 – Arizona Auto Theft Authority Board
State Banking Department (1922-2004)
See: Arizona Department of Financial Institutions for complete history
The duties of the Arizona State Banking Department were transferred to the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions in 2004 (Laws 2004, Chapter 188).
The State Banking Department, created by the Legislature in 1922, supervised state-licensed financial institutions and enterprises (Laws 1922, Chapter 31). The Governor appointed the Superintendent of Banks, who had oversight for all operations. The Department chartered and examined banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, trust companies and small loan companies. The Department also licensed financial enterprises and investigated potential mismanagement of the enterprises. The Department did not have jurisdiction over federally chartered banks, savings and loans or credit unions.
Laws 1935, Chapter 51 created the State Board of Barber Examiners. The name was changed to Board of Barbers by Laws 1984, Chapter 279, effective retroactively to July 1, 1984. As part of the sunset review process, the Board was continued to July 1, 2022 by Laws 2014, Chapter 247. See A.R.S. § 32-301 et seq.
Formerly the State Board of Barbers and Cosmeticians, (1929-1935). See Laws 1931, Chapter 39. The State Board of Beauty Culturist Examiners was also established on the same date thus differentiating beauty culture and barbers. In 1984, the Legislature established minimum qualifications to enter the profession and disciplinary measures for barbers who violate statutes or rules.
The Board consists of five members, appointed by the Governor, to five year terms. Three members represent the profession and two are public members.
A.R.S. § 32-301 et seq.
Session laws (1931, 1935, 1984 and 2014)
State Board of Beauty Culturist Examiners (1935 – 1958)
See State Board of Cosmetology
See also: Industrial Commission of Arizona
The Boiler Advisory Board was established in 1977. Current statutory authority is found at A.R.S. §§23-471 through 23-489.
The Boiler Advisory Board assists the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) to draft standards and regulations for boilers and lined hot water storage heaters. ICA was created in 1925 to oversee state programs related to workplace safety, working conditions and worker’s compensation. The five-member Board meets at least once per year and on the call of the ICA.
Commercial boilers burn combustible fuel or use electricity to heat water, creating either hot water or steam, which is generally used to provide heating for buildings. Boilers are pressurized systems which contain very hot water or steam. Lined hot water storage heaters are used to supply potable hot water for commercial purposes. Safety measures and preventative maintenance are critical to prevent explosions, injury and damage.
Since 1977, the Industrial Commission of Arizona, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, has administered safety conditions for boilers and lined hot water storage heaters. The Boiler Advisory Board was established to work with the ICA to draft standards and regulations for boilers and lined hot water storage heaters.
Laws 2016, Chapter 356 revised the responsibilities of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health and also modified the Boiler Advisory Board to include five members who represent specific interests. Members are appointed by the Industrial Commission to three-year terms. The measure continued the Board for eight years, until July 1, 2024.
Laws 1977, Chapter 166
Arizona State Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission
See also: Department of Gaming, Arizona Department of Racing
Authority – Transferred
Limited boxing and sparring matches were first authorized in 1919 and the Arizona State Athletic Commission was established in 1958. Laws 1982, Chapter 39 created the Arizona State Boxing Commission, which was renamed as the Arizona State Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission in 2010. Laws 2015, Chapter 19 established the Division of Boxing within the Department of Gaming. Statutory authority for the Commission is found at A.R.S.§§5-221 et seq.
The Commission regulates and supervises all boxing, kickboxing, tough man, and mixed martial arts events in Arizona to ensure compliance with laws and regulation and, thereby, protect all participants. The Commission issues licenses, oversees contests and is authorized to conduct investigations and take disciplinary action as needed.
Laws 1919, Chapter 167 authorized limited boxing and sparring matches in Arizona, subject to specific restrictions. Matches were limited to ten rounds, could not be held on Sunday, and contestants were required to wear padded gloves of at least eight ounces each. Boxers had to be declared to be physically fit by a physician. Written notice to the sheriff of the county where the match was to be held had to be provided at least five days prior to the match, a permit from the mayor or county board of supervisors was required, and the ticket price had to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.
Laws 1958, Chapter 97 established the Arizona State Athletic Commission to regulate all professional boxing, sparring and wrestling matches and exhibitions. The Commission was made up of three members appointed by the Governor to three-year terms. Provisions of the act applied in any county with a population of more than 125,000. The provisions of the act applied in counties with a population of less than 125,000 if the board of supervisors adopted a resolution asking the Commission to assume jurisdiction of professional boxing and wrestling in that county.
In 1982 the Arizona State Athletic Commission was renamed the Arizona State Boxing Commission (Laws 1982, Chapter 39).
Laws 1992, Chapter 337 transferred responsibility to collect license fees, taxes on gross receipts, and cash and surety bonds from the Boxing Commission to the Arizona Department of Racing. The law also allowed the Department of Racing and the Boxing Commission to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to provide office space, communication services and administrative and clerical support to the Commission.
In 1997, tough man and non-traditional fighting contests were authorized and the Commission was allowed to enter into intergovernmental agreements with tribes to regulate boxing contests on Indian reservations (Laws 1997, Chapter 294).
In 2010, the name of the Commission was changed to the Arizona State Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission (Laws 2010, Chapter 269).
Laws 2013, Chapter 72 modified requirements, exemptions and licensing requirements pertaining to boxing and mixed martial arts.
Laws 2015, Chapter 19 established a division of boxing and a division of racing within the Arizona Department of Gaming. The measure conveyed regulatory authority for horse racing, dog racing, harness racing, pari-mutuel wagering, boxing and mixed martial arts to the Department of Gaming, effective July 3, 2015.
Laws 2016, Chapter 22 continued the Commission for two years, until July 1, 2018.
Laws 1919, Chapter 167
Laws 1958, Chapter 97
Laws 1982, Chapter 39
Laws 1992, Chapter 337
Laws 1997, Chapter 294
Laws 2010, Chapter 269
Laws 2013, Chapter 72
Laws 2016, Chapter 22
Master List of State Government Programs http://www.ospb.state.az.us
Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts Commission website: http://www.boxingandmma.az.gov
Arizona Department of Racing website: http://www.racing.az.gov
Record Group 41 – Arizona Gaming Commission
Record Group 190 – Arizona Racing Commission
Central Arizona Water Conservation District(CAWCD)
Initially created by Laws 1971, Chapter 50. In 1985 Title 48 (“Special Taxing Districts”) was created and the CAWCD statutes were transferred to Title 48, Chapter 22, Articles 1 through 4 (Laws 1985, Chapter 190, Section 24, effective August 7, 1985) See A.R.S. §§ 48-3701 to 48-3784 for current statutory authority.
The CAWCD is a multi-county water district (Maricopa, Pima and Pinal counties) formed to manage the Central Arizona Project (CAP) and to repay the federal government for costs of constructing the CAP. The CAWCD is also responsible for planning and implementing projects to supply its district with water. It operates the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) and several recharge facilities.
The Central Arizona Project was established on September 30, 1968 by the Colorado River Basin Project Act (USPL 1967, Chapter 57, page 380). The Central Arizona Project is a 336-mile long aqueduct system. Its primary purpose is to conserve groundwater supplies by importing Arizona’s allocation of mainstream Colorado River water.
The district was established to:
enter into contracts with the Secretary of Interior for water from the CAP
levy a tax on the property within the boundaries of the district in order to repay the federal government for costs of constructing the CAP
manage the $1.2 million project CAP
(#2 and #3 are required by P.L. 90-537)
Originally found in Title 45, Chapter 13, Article 1 (A.R.S. §§ 45-2601 to 45-2617) and Article 2 (A.R.S. §§ 45-2631 to 45-2634). Transferred and renumbered to Title 48, Chapter 22, Articles 1 through 4 (A.R.S. §§ 48-3701 to A.R.S. 48-3784)
The District is headed by a general manager who reports to the fifteen-member CAWCD Board of Directors. Board members are popularly elected from CAP’s three county service area and serve staggered six-year terms.
A.R.S. §§ 48-3701 to 48-3784
Arizona Children’s Colony Board
State Department of Developmental Disability within the Arizona Department of Economic Security. See Title 36, Chapter 5.1, Articles 1 – 5 (A.R.S. § 36-551 to 36-596.07)
Responsible for developing a statewide plan, programs and services for persons with developmental disabilities in locations where the programs and services are necessary, including child services, adult services, residential services and resource services.
The Arizona Children’s Colony was established by Laws 1927, Chapter 96, to care for and educate “mentally defective children in the state of Arizona” and to “develop each child to the fullest, making him as independent and self-sustaining as his limited capacities will permit.” (1951 Annual Report) The colony was under the direct supervision and control of the Arizona State Board of Education and was to be located in Tempe as part of the Tempe State Teachers College.
In 1945 the Arizona Children’s Colony Board was created, which assumed jurisdiction of the Colony from the board of State Institutions for Juveniles. Governor Sidney P. Osborn approved the bill reluctantly, explaining in a letter to Secretary of State Dan E. Garvey, dated October 11, 1945 that “nothing is accomplished except transfer of jurisdiction…[which]…is rather a ludicrous situation when it is remembered that Arizona has no Children’s Colony for the reason that the Legislature has never made an appropriation whereby one could be built and equipped.” (Letter follows the text of the legislation, Laws 1945, First Special Session, Chapter 34)
The Children’s Colony was built on 255 acres of land adjacent to Highway 87 south of Randolph, Arizona. It grew to accommodate over 1,000 children and adults. In 1970 the colony was renamed to the Arizona Training Center, Coolidge and the duties were transferred to the newly established State Department of Mental Retardation (Laws 1970, Chapter 168). In 1981, the Department was renamed the State Department of Developmental Disability (Laws 1981, Chapter 195) and operates as a division of the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
Annual Report 1947 and 1951
Session Laws: Laws 1927, Chapter 96; Laws 1945, First Special Session, Chapter 34;
Laws 1970, Chapter 168; Laws 1981, Chapter 195.
A.R.S. §§ 36-551 to 36-596.07
The Clean Elections Commission was established by the Citizens Clean Elections Act (Proposition 200), an initiative measure that was approved in the 1998 General Election. Statutory authority is found at A.R.S. §§ 16-940 to 16-961.
The Commission is responsible for adopting rules to carry out the Act’s provisions and to govern its procedures. The Act established campaign contribution limits, spending limits, reporting requirements, and debate requirements for participating candidates.
The Citizens Clean Elections Act (Act) was passed by voters in November 1998. The Act established a campaign financing system to provide public funding to qualified candidates running for legislative and state-wide offices and created the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to enforce the Act’s provisions.
The Commission consists of five members, each serving a five-year term. No more than two commission members may be from the same political party. Vacancies are filled through a process in which remaining commissioners nominate a slate of three candidates. The Governor and the highest-ranking official holding a state-wide office who is not a member of the same political party as the Governor alternate in selecting a new commissioner.
The Commission is responsible for providing public funding to qualified candidates, publishing voter education pamphlets, sponsoring debates, administering the Fund and enforcing campaign finance laws established by the Act. The Act established campaign contribution limits, spending limits, reporting requirements, and debate requirements for participating candidates. It also established campaign contribution limits and reporting requirements for candidates who elect not to receive public funding for their campaigns. These candidates are referred to as nonparticipating candidates.
A.R.S. §§ 16-940 to 16-961
http://www.azsos.gov/election/1998/Info/PubPamphlet/prop200.pdf
http://www.azcleanelections.gov/about-us
Colorado River Boundary Commission (Commission) Authority (Repealed)
The Commission was first established in 1923 and renewed in later years to address disputes related to state boundaries created by the Colorado River. See A.R.S. §§ 41-521 through 41-523. Laws 1991, Chapter 8, Section 10 terminated the Commission effective July 1, 1992 and repealed the statutory provisions effective January 1, 1993.
Note: Various commissions have been established from time to time to address issues relating to the Colorado River. The names of the entities are very similar (i.e. the Colorado River Commission, the Colorado River Boundary Commission and the Colorado River Boundary Markers Division within the Arizona State Land Department). This history of the Colorado River Boundary Commission outlines efforts to resolve disputes related to boundaries. A history of the Colorado River Commission, which addresses the history of water rights, flood control and the Colorado River Compact, is found elsewhere in this document. Likewise, a history of the Colorado River Boundary Markers Division, which addresses placement of permanent markers for the established boundaries, is found elsewhere in this document.
The Commission was created to resolve disputes regarding the common boundary line among the states of Arizona, California and Nevada that resulted from changes in the flow of the Colorado River. Originally established in 1923 and subsequently renewed in 1943 and 1953, the Commission completed its duties in 1967 and was repealed by Laws 1991, Chapter 8.
The Colorado River serves as the common boundary for Arizona and California and a portion of the boundary for Arizona and Nevada. The dividing line has generally been the center of the river, however when the river meanders (changes course periodically), the mainstream shifts, creating uncertainty as to where the true boundary line is located.
As a result of the river’s meanderings, by the early 1920’s significant friction developed between California and Arizona regarding jurisdiction, including title to property, property taxes, hunting and fishing regulations, farming allotments and farm loans. (See “Our Boundaries,” by Robert C. Morrow). A Bureau of Reclamation report identified “problems of ownership of the land along the river caused by meanders of the river” and the “controversy between Arizona and California as to the location of each state’s boundary.” The Bureau established a special office, the Lower Colorado Land Use Office in Yuma, to work with federal, state and private landowners to address various concerns.
A number of legislative enactments addressed interstate boundary and related governmental administration issues. The Legislature enacted measures in 1923, 1943, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1971 and 1984 in order to resolve those issues.
In addition to boundary issues, the broader issue of water rights and development of the Colorado River was also a state concern in the early 1920’s, as described in detail by Governor Hunt in his state of the state address to the Legislature in 1923 and again in 1925. At the time, Arizona was considering whether to enter into a compact with six other states and Mexico, regarding flood control measures and apportionment of the water in the Colorado River. See Journals of the Sixth State Legislature of Arizona, 1923; and Journals of the Seventh State Legislature of Arizona, 1925. The Colorado River Compact is addressed in the history of the Colorado River Commission, found elsewhere in this document.
Laws 1923, Chapter 18 created a commission consisting of the Governor, Attorney General and state engineer to review the common boundary of Arizona and California, and to consider measures to straighten, control and improve the Colorado River channel. The measure required the Governor of Arizona to request the Governor of California to appoint a like committee in order for the two states to hold hearings and conferences as needed to investigate: 1) the location and common boundary of the two states regarding the channel of the Colorado River from the Arizona-Nevada border to Mexico; 2) the need to define or relocate the boundary; and 3) the advisability of straightening, controlling and improving the channel. The measure required the Commission to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature prior to the 1925 Legislative session.
Laws 1943, Chapter 7 authorized the Governor to appoint a five-member committee to investigate conditions along the Colorado River that forms the boundary between Arizona and California, from above Parker Dam, extending to the vicinity of Needles, California. The measure required the committee to conduct a joint meeting with the California legislature, consider all matters deemed pertinent and to report its findings to the Governor. The committee met with a similar committee of California legislators in Needles, California to review several issues, including encroachment of the river, health conditions, damage to property, law enforcement and jurisdiction for purpose of taxation. The joint committee met February 18, 1943 and March 10, 1943.
Laws 1953, Chapter 9 created a Colorado River Boundary Commission, consisting of the Attorney General, State Land Commissioner and chairman of the Interstate Stream Commission. The measure outlined the Commission’s powers and duties, transferred funds from the State Land Department (which had been appropriated by Laws 1952, Chapter 149, subdivision 74 for aerial surveys of land adjacent to the Colorado River) to the Colorado Boundary Commission, and appropriated $25,000 for the expenses of the joint investigation. The appropriation remained available for expenditure until June 30, 1955. A report of findings and recommendations was required to be submitted to the Governor and Legislature prior to the beginning of the 1955 legislative session.
In 1953, California created a corresponding Colorado River Boundary Commission to document historic meanderings of the river since 1850 and the related effects on the common boundaries. After consideration of several plans, the states agreed to establish the boundary by using a series of fixed points so the boundary would not be changed by future meanderings of the river. Approval of the United States Congress was required in order to finalize recommended boundary changes.
The first meeting was held September 10, 1953. The commission reviewed the treaties, constitutional provisions and statutes related to the common boundary between the two states. Engineers for each state conducted a methodical review of historic data and surveys, and conducted additional aerial surveys. The commission found that certain sections of the river meander, especially in Mohave Valley (near Needles), Parker Valley, Palo Verde Valley, Cibola Valley and Yuma Valley. The committee found retracement to be unfeasible, and recommended fixing the boundary of the river to the “face of the earth by having its turning points described in such a manner so their geodetic location could be determined and fixed.” Between 1953 and 1961, the commission held nine joint sessions and conducted public hearings in Yuma, Blythe and Needles. Numerous meetings were held by each commission separately. The final joint meeting of the Commission was held on February 27, 1961. (See “Joint Summary Report on Arizona-California Boundary,” December 27, 1954.)
Laws 1955, Chapter 83 modified the powers and duties of the Commission by adding responsibilities relating to mapping, providing information to the member of Congress, administrative agreements and procedural rules. The measure also required the Commission to submit reports to the Governor and Legislature before each regular session.
In 1956, Arizona’s constitution was amended to authorize the legislature to modify the state boundaries. Approval of the U.S. Congress is required in order to finalize a boundary modification. See Arizona Constitution, Article 1, Section 2.
Laws 1959, Chapter 36 expanded the responsibilities of the Colorado River Boundary Commission to include authority to negotiate a compact with the state of Nevada in order to define the common boundary between Davis Dam on the Colorado River and a point where the Nevada-Colorado state line intersects the thirty-fifth degree of latitude, north. The measure specified the compact would not become effective until approved by the legislature and by the Congress of the United States. The measure also modified Commission responsibilities with regard to negotiating a compact with California regarding common boundaries.
Laws 1960, Chapter 69 ratified the compact executed on February 6, 1960 between Arizona and Nevada relating to the common boundary formed by the Colorado River.
Laws 1963, Chapter 77 ratified an interstate compact between Arizona and California fixing the location of the boundary line between Arizona and California on the Colorado River. In order to become effective, the compact had to be ratified and approved by the California legislature as well as the U.S. Congress.
Laws 1971, Chapter 49 established the Arizona Water Commission as a single state agency responsible for development, conservation and utilization of all waters within the jurisdiction of the state and for supervision of dams under state jurisdiction. The measure abolished the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission and transferred its personnel, equipment, records, property and funds to the Arizona Water Commission. As a conforming change, the membership of the Colorado River Boundary Commission was revised to include the Attorney General, the State Land Commissioner and the Chairman of the Arizona Water Commission (replacing the chairman of the Interstate Stream Commission).
Laws 1984, Chapter 186 allowed Arizona to enter compacts with California and Nevada to cooperate in the enforcement of criminal laws and boating safety regulations on the rivers and lakes forming the boundary between the states, and to provide concurrent jurisdiction for the courts of this state and each of the other states for criminal offenses committed on the waterway forming the boundary between the states.
Arizona Constitution, Article 1, Section 2
Journals of the Sixth State Legislature of Arizona, 1923
Journals of the Seventh State Legislature of Arizona, 1925
Laws 1923, Chapter 18
Laws 1943, Chapter 7
Laws 1952, Chapter 149
Laws 1953, Chapter 9
Laws 1955, Chapter 83
Laws 1959, Chapter 36
Laws 1960, Chapter 69
Laws 1963, Chapter 77
Laws 1984, Chapter 186
Laws 1991, Chapter 8
Final Report, Arizona Colorado River Boundary Commission. May 26, 1967.
Joint Report of the Colorado River Boundary Commissions of the States of Arizona and Nevada to the Governors and Legislatures of the respective states. February 6, 1960
Joint Summary Report on Arizona-California Boundary. December 27, 1954.
Our Boundaries, (from information assembled by Arizona State Senator Robert E. Morrow, advisory member of the Colorado River Boundary Commission). 1959
Reconnaissance Report: Arizona-Colorado River Diversion Projects. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada. November 1963. Pages 40-41.
Report of Colorado River Boundary Commission of Arizona. January 1961 and January 1962.
Report on Arizona-California Boundary. State of Arizona, Colorado River Boundary Commission. March 1955.
Report on Arizona-California Boundary. State of Arizona, Colorado River Boundary Commission. January 1960.
Record Group 10 – Arizona California Boundary Commission. Minutes of the Arizona-California Boundary Commission, 1943.
Colorado River Boundary Markers Division
The Colorado River Boundary Markers Division was established by Laws 1961, Chapter 72. Statutory authority is found at A.R.S. §§ 41-525.01 through 41-525.03.
The Division was created to investigate and determine methods to permanently mark the boundaries between the states of Nevada and California and the state of Arizona in order to implement the terms of the Colorado River Boundary Commission decisions.
Various commissions have been established from time to time to address issues relating to the Colorado River. The names of the entities are very similar (i.e. the Colorado River Commission, the Colorado River Boundary Commission and the Colorado River Boundary Markers Division). The Colorado River Commission addressed water rights, flood control and the Colorado River Compact. The Colorado River Boundary Commission was created to resolve disputes related to state boundaries. The Colorado River Boundary Markers Division was created to permanently mark the state boundary lines agreed to by the Colorado River Boundary Commission.
The Office of the Colorado River Boundary Markers Division was established by Laws 1961, Chapter 72 as a division within the State Land Department and the Arizona State Land Commissioner served as the ex officio Colorado River Boundary Marker Commissioner. Subject to appropriations, the office was responsible for permanently marking the established boundaries between the states of Nevada and California and the state of Arizona. The office was also required to: 1) investigate problems associated with marking the boundaries at the time the boundaries were permanently established under the terms of the Colorado River Boundary Commission Act; 2) report the results of investigations to the Colorado River Boundary Commission; 3) determine methods to mark the boundaries in a manner agreeable to all states and report those methods to the Colorado River Boundary Commission; 4) cooperate with California, Nevada and the federal government to establish the permanent markers; and 5) report any related problems to the Legislature.
The measure included an expiration date of either three years after the effective date of the act or three years after the duties of the division were completed, whichever was later.
Note: The Colorado River Boundary Commission issued a final report on May 27, 1967. The report states the Commission completed its work and notes that two separate compacts with California and Nevada were ratified and approved by the U.S. Congress. The final report does not mention the Colorado River Boundary Markers Division.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 41, Chapter 3, Article 2.1
Laws 1961, Chapter 72
Previous: Department of Commerce.
Created by Laws 2011, Second Special Session, Chapter 1 and Laws 2012, Chapter 170.
The Arizona Commerce Authority (Authority) was established to facilitate the beneficial economic growth and development of this state and to promote prosperity through the development and protection of the legitimate interests of Arizona business, industry and commerce within and outside this state.
The Authority was established by Governor Jan Brewer (Executive Order 2010-12) and created a public-private board of directors to provide private sector leadership and support to diversity the state economy, create new jobs, and attract businesses. Prior to creation of the Arizona Commerce Authority, many of these duties were housed in the Arizona Department of Commerce. (See Arizona Department of Commerce, this document.)
For earlier see: Industrial Commission of Arizona
The Arizona Constitution, Article 18 outlines provisions related to labor and Section 8, adopted in 1925, specifically addresses workers’ compensation. The 1925 Arizona Workman’s Compensation Act initially created the State Compensation Fund as part of the Industrial Commission of Arizona. In 1968 the State Compensation Fund was established as a stand-alone agency. It was subsequently privatized and terminated as a state agency, effective January 1, 2013.
State law requires all employers to provide workers’ compensation insurance for their employees. The employer, not the employee, pays the insurance premium. The State Compensation Fund was established to help Arizona employers provide medical coverage, rehabilitation and supplemental income for workers injured on the job. The mission of the SCF was to provide a ready market for workers’ compensation insurance at the lowest possible cost. Employers could choose to obtain this type of insurance from the SCF, from a private insurance carrier, or by self-insuring.
Although not required to do so by statute, the SCF served as the insurer of last resort, accepting all employers regardless of claims history, size or business experience. The SCF also accepted employers unable to obtain workers’ compensation insurance coverage from private carriers as well as those employers who were unable to self-insure.
The SCF received no state general fund appropriations, as it generated operating revenues from premiums paid by policyholders and from investment income. If SCF revenues exceeded the amount necessary to cover benefit payments and required reserves, dividends were paid to policyholders.
The State Compensation Fund continued until January 1, 2013 when it was privatized and replaced by a successor mutual insurer corporation that assumed all liabilities and assets of the SCF. The successor was Copper Point Mutual Insurance Company. See Laws 2010, Chapter 268 and Laws 2011, Chapter 157 for additional information.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) was created in 1925 to oversee state programs related to workplace safety and workers’ compensation (Laws 1925, Chapter 83). In addition to other responsibilities, the ICA administered the State Compensation Fund, which offered liability insurance to employers.
Laws 1943, Chapter 26 made the ICA the administrator of Arizona’s Occupational Disease Disability Law. The law also created a liability insurance fund, the State Occupational Disease Compensation Fund, to insure employers against liability and to provide compensation for employees who contracted an occupational disease as a result of their employment. The State Treasurer served as custodian of the Fund.
The State Compensation Fund, which had been a part of the ICA since 1925, was established as a separate agency in 1968 in order to provide a ready market for workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Arizona employers. A board and manager were responsible for oversight of the State Compensation Fund, and the manager handled day-to-day operations of the Fund. See Laws 1968, Fourth Special Session, Chapter 6.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) originally functioned as a state-owned insurance company with authority to regulate all other insurers who provided workers’ compensation coverage in the state. When the ICA was reorganized in 1968, the Arizona Department of Insurance assumed the responsibility to license workers’ compensation insurance carriers.
According to Auditor General reports, in 1997 the SCF insured approximately 48,000 employers, accounting for approximately 61 percent of the employers who purchased workers’ compensation insurance. In 2007, the SCF provided workers’ compensation insurance to over 55,000 businesses, accounting for approximately 58 percent of Arizona employers (Auditor General Performance Audit Reports #98-22 and #09-05).
In 1990, the Legislature exempted the SCF from requirements related to the state personnel administration, risk management, employee compensation and insurance requirements. See Auditor General Report 88-10, page 3 and Laws 1990, Chapter 249.
In 2004 the Legislature transferred $50 million from the SCF to the state General Fund in exchange for a transfer of $50 million worth of state assets to the SCF. See Laws 2003, First Special Session, Chapter 2. The SCF filed suit against the state and in April 2004, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled the transfer a violation of the Arizona Constitution. The Court stated monies and assets held by the SCF are not public monies, but are assets held in trust for the employer, injured workers and their families. See State Compensation Fund v. Petersen, CV2003-011970 (Maricopa County Superior Court, filed June 20, 2003).
In March 2006, the SCF registered the trade name SCF Arizona and used that name as its official corporate name. In June 2006, SCF Premier was launched as a subsidiary company, which offered lower premium prices to large companies with strong safety records. See Auditor General Performance Audit, No. 09-05, page 2.
Laws 2010, Chapter 268, required the SCF Board of Directors to establish a successor corporation no later than January 1, 2013. Legislation was adopted the following year making conforming changes to state statutes in order to reflect the termination of the SCF (Laws 2011, Chapter 157).
The State Compensation Fund continued until January 1, 2013 when it was privatized and replaced by a successor mutual insurer corporation that assumed all liabilities and assets of the SCF. The successor was Copper Point Mutual Insurance Company.
Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 8
Laws 1925, Chapter 83
Laws 1943, Chapter 26
Laws 1968, Chapter 6, 4th Special Session
Laws 1990, Chapter 249
Laws 2003, Chapter 2, 1st Special Session
Laws 2010, Chapter 268
Laws 2011, Chapter 157
Arizona Auditor General Performance Audits (1988, 1998, 2009) www.azauditor.gov
Industrial Commission of Arizona www.ica.state.az.us
The Arizona Constitution (Article 15) and A.R.S. Title 40.
The Arizona Corporation Commission consists of five elected commissioners. In November 2000, the voters amended the Constitution to expand the size of the Commission from three to five members and modified the term of office. The term of office is now four years, with the possibility of reelection to one additional (consecutive) four-year term.
The Commissioners are responsible for public utilities regulation, facilitating incorporation of businesses and organizations, granting or denying rate adjustments, enforcing safety and public service requirements and approving securities matters. The Commissioners choose one member from among themselves to serve as Chairman. An Executive Director serves at the pleasure of the Commission and is responsible for the day to day operations of the divisions.
Arizona Constitution, Article 15
A.R.S. Title 40
See also: Department of Juvenile Corrections
The purpose of the Department of Corrections (the Department) is to encompass the current and future institutions, facilities, and programs that are part of Arizona’s correctional program. The Department also provides supervisory staff and administrative functions at the state level for “all matters relating to the institutionalization, rehabilitation and community supervision functions of all adult offenders.” (A.R.S. §41-1602). As of 2015, there are ten state prisons, and six state-level private facilities.
The Department is overseen by a director that is appointed by the governor. The director must be experienced in adult correctional programs, and have qualifications and training for managing a modern penal system.
The Department has four divisions. The Administrative Services Division manages a variety of administrative functions for the Department including financial services; information technology; facilities maintenance and construction; planning, budgeting, and research.
Laws governing the operation of state prisons and the treatment of prisoners are found in Title 31, Chapter 2. Laws governing the operation of county jails and treatment of those prisoners are found in Title 31, Chapter 1.
Since Territorial days, Arizona law has established both county jails, kept by the sheriffs of the counties where they are located; and territorial (state) institutions for adult and juvenile offenders. In 1875, Arizona’s first Territorial Prison was constructed in Yuma. Later, in 1908, the Arizona Prison at Florence was built by inmates and replaced the Territorial Prison at Yuma. A superintendent and board of control were responsible for operating the prisons. For more information on the history of institutions for juveniles, refer to the history of the Department of Juvenile Corrections.
Laws 1970, Chapter 40 and Chapter 104 expanded the Director’s powers. Chapter 40 authorized the Director to establish and operate community correctional centers, which were meant to provide housing, supervision, and counseling for parolees and inmates allowed to participate in work and educational programs. Chapter 104 enabled the Director to authorize performance of medical, surgical, or dental services deemed medically necessary by the attending physician or dentist for any person under care of the department (but not employees) when a spouse, adult next of kin, or legal guardian was not available. A third measure adopted that year, Laws 1970, Chapter 174 authorized creation of the Arizona Correctional Training Facility for confinement of male inmates and to provide vocational and industrial training while in custody.
Laws 1972, Chapter 86 authorized Arizona’s entrance into the Interstate Corrections Compact, which was to provide for mutual program development and cooperation for the confinement, treatment, and rehabilitation of offenders.
Laws 2011, Chapter 33 established the Department of Corrections Building Renewal Fund and allowed monies in the fund to be used to repair buildings and infrastructure. Funds are derived from various (non-general fund) sources including prisoner spendable accounts, the inmate store, and the ACI revolving fund. Monies may not be used for new buildings, landscaping or demolition, although a portion of the monies may be used for routine preventative maintenance.
Arizona Revised Statutes §31-101 through §31-342 (2015)
Arizona Revised Statutes §§41-1601 et seq. (2015)
Report to the Arizona Legislature: Proposed Structural Reorganization of Correctional Programs in Arizona, Joint Study Committee on Juvenile Institutions, January 1968: http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/cdm/singleitem/collection/statepubs/id/9281/rec/1
The Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) was created by Laws 1986, Chapter 325. It is one of three plans administered by the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. Current authority can be found at A.R.S.§§38-881 et seq.
CORP provides uniform retirement and disability benefits for specifically designated positions listed in statute, which includes State of Arizona corrections officers and employees as well as county, city or town detention officers, dispatchers and probation officers (A.R.S.§38-881).
The Board of Trustees for the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System provides oversight for investments pursuant to A.R.S.§38-883. Although the Board is not responsible for the actions or omissions of the local boards, it has the authority to seek review or rehearing in order to protect the System as a whole. The Board of Trustees is made up of seven members, appointed by the Governor to five-year terms.
Statute requires each employer group participating in CORP to establish a local board and assigns numerous responsibilities to each board. Each local board determines eligibility for membership, retirement benefits based on years of service, and survivor benefits.
Laws 1986, Chapter 325 created CORP and authorized the fund manager for the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) to manage CORP’s monies and investments. The initial formula created a pension that provided up to 75% of a member’s average annual salary, which was calculated by multiplying years of service by 2. Retirement began at age 62 (requiring a minimum 10 years of service) or at age 55 (with a minimum 25 years of service). Benefits included pensions for accidental disability and survivor benefits. Both the retirement age and the pension formula have been modified in the years since CORP was created.
Initially, only counties could enter into a joinder agreement; in order to do so they were required to end any existing corrections officer retirement plan and submit to an actuarial review to determine the amount of money they needed to add to the fund.
Laws 1990, Chapter 272 added local boards, similar to those used by the PSPRS, to handle local administration of CORP. Local boards for the State Department of Corrections, the State Department of Juvenile Corrections, and each participating county were authorized in order to administer and implement the plan’s provisions with regard to eligibility and service credit. The measure also established requirements for serving on the local board; outlined board powers and duties; allowed up to four years of military service to be converted to service credits; provided benefit increases for members; and established a death benefit for those not yet eligible for a pension.
Laws 1991, Chapter 155 allowed municipalities to join CORP and required local boards to be established. The measure also allowed a municipality to enter into a joinder agreement in order to bring its detention officers into the plan.
Laws 1996, Chapter 282 allowed a local board to specify that a position was designated as eligible for CORP if an employee with at least five years service filled the position.
Laws 2007, Chapter 87 allowed pensions to be diverted to an alternate payee if compelled by a domestic relations order.
Laws 2008, Chapter 144 allowed detention officers employed by the Department of Public Safety to participate in CORP and included DPS in the list of agencies required to establish a local board.
Laws 2010, Chapter 200 removed the PSPRS fund manager position and replaced it with the PSPRS Board of Trustees which continued to administer the investment portion of CORP. The Board of Trustees also retained the power to call for a rehearing of a local board decision.
A.R.S.§§38-881 et seq.
Laws 1986, Chapter 325
Laws 1990, Chapter 272
Laws 1991, Chapter 155
Laws 1996, Chapter 282
Laws 2008, Chapter 144
CORP Annual Reports www.psprs.com
Established by Laws 1958, Chapter 101. Statutory authority found at A.R.S. §32-501.
The broadest goal of the Board is to protect the public from the incompetent practice of cosmetology. To do this, the Board is tasked with creating and enforcing sanitary and safety standards in salons and schools, as well as within the general practice of cosmetology, aesthetics, and nail technology. Additional responsibilities include: setting standards for salon services, whether mobile or in a fixed location; administering written and practical examinations (or contracting with a national professional organization to do the same); and prescribing minimum curriculum standards for schools that train cosmetologists, aestheticians, nail technicians, and instructors.
Formerly the State Board of Beauty Culturist Examiners from 1935-1958 (Laws 1935, Chapter 52) and prior to that, the State Board of Barbers and Cosmeticians from 1929-1935 (Laws 1929, Chapter 76).
Laws 1958, Chapter 101 established the modern incarnation of the State Board of Cosmetology, creating the Board and instituting authority to adopt rules and regulations. While the 1984 update (Laws 1984, Chapter 280) updated language and some organizational aspects of Board statutes (A.R.S. Title 32-501 to 32-576), the powers and duties of the Board remained effectively unchanged.
The initial Board consisted of three members, appointed by the governor, for three-year terms. Laws 1984, Chapter 280 increased the number of Board members to seven including two practicing cosmetologists, one practicing nail technician, one active instructor, one school owner, one educator from outside cosmetology and nail technology, and one member of the public not associated with the field.
Laws 2000, Chapter 147 allowed the Board to administer testing or to contract with a national professional organization instead. Laws 2011, Chapter 199 eliminated term limits for Board members; however the measure retained the provision that allows the Governor the discretion to remove a member for neglect of duty, malfeasance, or misfeasance.
A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 5
Laws 1958, Chapter 101
Laws 1984, Chapter 280
Cotton Research and Protection Council (Council)
The Cotton Research and Protection Council was established by Laws 1984, Chapter 249. Statutory authority is found at A.R.S. §§3-1081 et seq.
The Council promotes cotton research, provides funding for abatement procedures and supports cotton pest eradication programs. The Council consists of nine active cotton producers appointed by the Governor to three-year terms. Growers are assessed a fee for each bale of cotton produced in the state. Fees vary, based on where the cotton is grown and the color of the cotton. The fees collected support the Council, which does not receive state general funds. The Council is authorized to rebate a portion of the fees as an incentive for cotton producers to plow up cotton fields as part of the state’s pest control management program.
The Council was established in 1984 to generate monies to support cotton research, to provide a source of funds for abatement procedures and to support cotton pest eradication programs and activities. The legislation authorized the collection of a fee of up to one dollar for each bale of cotton produced in the state. At the time of creation, a grower could request a refund of fees; however that option was repealed in 1987. The Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture (now part of the Arizona Department of Agriculture) provided administrative services to the Council. The law also included a process to call for an election to determine whether to terminate the Council. An election could be triggered either by a vote of two-thirds of the Council members or upon petition by 300 contributing cotton producers. If a majority of voters voted ‘yes,’ the Council was required to notify the Legislature. If a majority voted ‘no,’ another election could not be conducted for two years. See Laws 1984, Chapter 249.
A number of changes to the Council were adopted in 1987. The fee assessed per bale was modified and based on the elevation of the land where the cotton was grown. The fee for cotton produced in higher elevations (above 2,700 feet) could not exceed one dollar per bale unless the state entomologist determined a need for pest eradication programs. The fee for cotton produced at or below 2,700 feet was increased to a maximum of five dollars per bale. Notice to the growers was required at least 60 days prior to adopting the fee. The measure repealed the ability for a grower to request a refund of fees and required the Council to refer the question of whether to renew the refund program at an election to be held no later than November 30, 1988. In addition, the threshold to petition for an advisory election to terminate the Council was modified to require the signatures of ten percent of the previous years’ contributing cotton producers, rather than the signatures of 300 contributing cotton producers. See Laws 1987, Chapter 58.
Laws 1988, Chapter 14 allowed the Council to employ staff and to enter into an interagency agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture for administrative services. The law clearly stated that an IGA did not convey any authority or control over the Council, its employees or assets.
Laws 1990, Chapter 32 authorized the Council to use monies collected pursuant to the per bale assessment as a rebate to facilitate a program to provide incentives for plow up of cotton fields.
Laws 1991, Chapter 108 revised legislation adopted the previous year and gave the Council discretionary authority to establish a program to refund fees to cotton producers in order to provide an incentive to abate cotton fields. The law also authorized the Council to expend monies to promote Arizona agriculture and the cotton industry. In addition, the law outlined the Council’s authority to provide benefits to its employees.
Laws 1994, Chapter 275 authorized the Arizona Department of Agriculture to adopt rules to regulate the production of colored cotton and allowed the Council to assess a fee of up to $3 per bale of colored cotton. The fee was dedicated to enforcement activities related to colored cotton. The law also authorized formation of a cotton pest control district based on a petition from, and unanimous consent of, the cotton producers who would be included in the district. Provisions for establishment of a board of directors, assessments, fees and a method to dissolve the district were included.
Laws 1996, Chapter 266 addressed cotton pest abatement and reimbursement of associated costs from the Council or the responsible cotton producer. The law also established a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation of rules related to production of colored cotton and revised provisions regarding collection and remittance schedules of per bale fees collected by cotton gins.
Laws 1999, Chapter 49 authorized establishment of a three-year, pink bollworm eradication program if approved by cotton producers. A fee based on the number of acres of cotton planted funded the eradication program. The fee did not apply to acres planted with Bt cotton, which is a variety of cotton developed to control bollworms and other insect pests that attack cotton. Although the growers did not approve the eradication program proposed in 1999, a subsequent referendum, proposed in 2004, was approved.
In 2004, the Council was authorized to conduct a statewide referendum to implement a four year pink bollworm eradication program to determine if a program should be implemented on a statewide or regional basis. See Laws 2004, Chapter 9.
Laws 2013, Chapter 161 revised the relationship and responsibilities of the Council and the Arizona Department of Agriculture with regard to: administrative services; abatement programs related to cotton protection; and requirements regarding plow up of cotton fields, fees, cost recovery and penalties. The per bale assessment for cotton grown at elevations above 2,700 feet was modified to allow collection of $3 per bale (reduced from a maximum of $5 per bale) in the event the Council determined that a program to control cotton pests or diseases was necessary. The law also exempted the Council from the requirement to participate in the state telecommunication carrier services.
Arizona Revised Statutes A.R.S. §§3-1081 et seq.
Laws 1984, Chapter 249
Laws 1987, Chapter 58
Laws 1988, Chapter 14
Laws 1990, Chapter 32
Laws 1991, Chapter 108
Laws 1994, Chapter 275
Laws 1996, Chapter 266
Laws 1999, Chapter 49
Laws 2004, Chapter 9
Laws 2013, Chapter 161
United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (ARS 154, January 2001) http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/btcotton/btcotton.pdf
Record Group 9 – AZ Department of Agriculture
Record Group 133, Subject Group 2 – U.S. Department of Agriculture
Manuscript Group 45 – Arizona Cotton Growers Association
Manuscript Group 122 – Hudson Cotton
Manuscript Group 123 – Supima Association of America
The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission was established in 1982. Statutory authority is found at A.R.S. §§41-2401 et seq.
The ACJC provides a cooperative exchange of information among various agencies and analyzes issues related to criminal justice and law enforcement. (Laws 2007, Chapter 21, Purpose) ACJC is required to monitor progress and implementation of criminal justice legislation; facilitate research among criminal justice agencies; facilitate efforts to share criminal justice information and data; prepare a biennial review report; and gather and disseminate information related to crime prevention to the public, local governments, law enforcement agencies and the legislature. The ACJC consists of nineteen members who serve either due to their position in state government or as appointed by the Governor. Appointed members serve terms of two years. The ACJC administers certain funds including the Victim Compensation and Assistance Fund; the State Aid to County Attorneys Fund; the County Jail Juvenile Improvement Fund and the Drug and Gang Enforcement Fund.
The ACJC was established in 1982 to facilitate exchange of information among criminal justice agencies, to maintain an archive, prepare reports, provide analyses of programs, the criminal justice system and the effectiveness of the criminal code, and make recommendations for revisions. Monies in the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund, also established in 1982, are distributed to specific law enforcement and judicial agencies based on a statutory formula.
The ACJC and the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund were created in 1982. See Laws 1982, Chapter 328 and Chapter 330. The measures outlined the duties of the ACJC and established an assessment on fines, penalties and forfeitures collected by the courts. Assessments, including an itemized statement, were required to be transmitted monthly to the county treasurer or city treasurer, as appropriate. The measures did not become effective unless both were enacted by the 35th Legislature during the second regular session (1982).
Laws 1985, Chapter 362 established the Victims Compensation Fund, administered by the ACJC and increased the number of members from 18 to 19, adding the chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Laws 1987, Chapter 307 established the Drug Enforcement Account, administered by the ACJC, to be distributed to various agencies. The measure modified the membership of the ACJC, decreasing the number of members to 17, modified ACJC duties, and established the Drug Enforcement Task Force as an advisory group to ACJC.
Three measures were enacted in 1988 affecting the ACJC. Laws 1988, Chapter 15 placed the Arson Detection Reward Fund under the jurisdiction of the ACJC. Laws 1988, Chapter 194 modified the membership of the ACJC. Laws 1988, Chapter 268 transferred the Criminal Justice Information System to ACJC.
Laws 1989, Chapter 86 prescribed distribution of monies from the Drug Enforcement Account to certain programs, agencies and operations; required, rather than allowed, an annual audit of the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund and modified the membership of ACJC.
Laws 1990 Chapter 366 modified distribution of certain funds and established a Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Drug Policy (changed to Committee on Drug and Gang Policy in 1991) to review related activities, rules and effectiveness of ACJC programs related to drug offenders, enforcement, education and treatment. The measure also required the Arizona Auditor General to conduct a financial audit of the monies distributed from the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund in fiscal year 1989. The audit was due by December 31, 1990. See also Laws 1991, Chapter 316.
Laws 1993, Chapter 255, the criminal code revision bill, contained extensive revisions. Among them, it changed the name of the Board of Pardons and Parole to the Board of Executive Clemency and made conforming changes to the ACJC.
Laws 1994, Chapter 18 transferred jurisdiction of the Arson Detection Reward Fund from ACJC to the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
Laws 2007, Chapter 163 transferred responsibilities for the Criminal Justice Information System from ACJC to the Department of Public Safety and required a biennial criminal justice review report, rather than an annual report.
Laws 2008, Chapter 69 requires the ACJC to compile information on best practices for cold case investigations.
Laws 1982, Chapter 328 and Chapter 330
Laws 1985, Chapter 362
Laws 1987, Chapter 307
Laws 1988, Chapter 15, Chapter 194 and Chapter 268
Laws 1989, Chapter 86
Laws 1990, Chapter 366
Laws 1991, Chapter 316
Laws 1994, Chapter 18
Laws 2007, Chapter 163
Laws 2008, Chapter 69
Related collection at Arizona State Archives: RG 163 – Arizona Criminal Justice Commission