Of Greg Honig's Attack On the Arizona State Hospital's Human Rights Committee, a Legitimate and Conscientious Body of Pateint Advocacy , In Place As Required by Arizona Revised Statute R9-21-105. 

Wherein, it is apparent that a state employed attorney, Greg Honig, unlawfully acting in complicity with the administrators of Arizona State Hospital, is engaged in taking retaliatory action against the current members of the ASH Human Rights Committee. While simultaneously denying the constitutional free speech rights of ASH patients willing to express discontent over the unlawful misconduct of Hospital physicians.

2018 UPDATE: We have in recent weeks been republishing articles originally produced in the first twelve months of the life of this blog, circa April 2012-2013. However, due to the recent emergence of a very critical issue posing threat to the function of the lawfully established Human Rights Committee at Arizona State Hospital, on this day we are instead republishing the following article, which was originally published in early 2014. 

Title 9. Health Services. Chapter 21. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System - Behavioral Health Services for Persons with Serious Mental Illness.

In accordance with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 9, Chapter 21, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), the staff of this publication strongly feel that the independence of ASH's HRC extends beyond the authority of state employed health care officials, including and especially state employed attorneys working in the health department.  As such, and as needed to ensure that the rights and care needs of ADHS/ASH clientele- whether or not they just so happen to be patients at ASH- I contend that any negative interference imposed on HRC by ADHS employed attorneys violates the findings intent of the AZ legislature at that time when the this specific statute (state law) was established. This issue has direct bearing on the role of all Human Rights Committee's currently functioning in the state.

"An attorney for the state told board members that he doesn’t believe the patient’s comments should be memorialized in the meeting minutes, which are an official public account of what happened."  (David Biscobing. ABC Ch15 News. April 11, 2014)

Greg Honig, an employee of the Office of the Arizona Attorney General, one of the identified state employed attorneys who have in recent weeks attempted to unjustly influence the function of the ASH HRC. And who also has engaged in willfully violating the constitutional rights of an ASH patient who lawfully expressed speech- as per the First  Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)- in direct relation to the issue of the contemptible sexual history of ASH's longstanding chief medical officer, Dr. Steven Dingle.

Honig is an assistant legal staff with the Arizona Office of the Attorney General (AZAG), directly akin to ASH's former on-site ASH attorney Joel Angel of Death- The Mortician" Rudd.  

As stated on AZAG's website, this office is required to enforce consumer protection and the civil rights of any citizen-consumer receiving services from all/any state agency(s) in Arizona. This does include ADHS and it’s sub-agency, Arizona State Hospital. It is also true that, in legal terms, all patients at ASH are members of a “protected special class,” this, more specifically, with direct regard for their status as disabled (by serious mental illness), and therein, being recipients of the provisions and protections provided to them by the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare [1990]). 

More specifically, Honig works today as an attorney in relation to AHCCCS. Yet another state managed agency that is obligated to meet the needs of Arizona citizens. With at least one staff attorney who is currently engaging in arguable abuses of his given authority, afforded him via the public trust. 

No offense intended, but nonetheless, fair warning herein to ADHS attorney Greg Honig.

"Therein, and 100% based upon my willingness to trust Patel, I did openly share the all details about the sexual abuse that I suffered as a young boy.... No wonder, then, that Laxman Patel was incapable of understanding the significance of childhood sexual abuse and its direct impacts on any child's emotional and psychological state(s), in graphic defiance of established psychiatric knowledge today. This, from a man recognized as ASH's longest employed senior clinician." (This blog, April 05, 2012.)

"Back in the proverbial day, I offered Cory Nelson and that whole other pack of Rat Bastards fair warning that did, in fact, begin with good faith, trust based efforts on my part, to merely ask them to do the right thing, as per their given job descriptions and the place in our society of well established standard of law and policy... I only hope, for the good of the patients at ASH, that Bowen and Christ are getting the idea by now. I could really care less about them, they being at no risk of any harm caused by anyone but by they, themselves." (This blog, January 28, 2018)

“A special oversight board created to look into abuse and human rights issues for patients at the Arizona state mental hospital is being blocked from doing its work by state officials….” (David Biscobing. ABC Ch15 News. April 11, 2014)

“ABC15 has also learned there’s an internal debate between the state and the Human Rights Committee about how to document the patient’s comments. An attorney for the state told board members that he doesn’t believe the patient’s comments should be memorialized in the meeting minutes, which are an official public account of what happened. An email was also sent out by state attorneys telling board members  that they want to reign in what patients or others say during the public comment portion of committee meetings.” ( Arizona State Hospital top doctor has history of sexual misconduct, harassment. David Biscobing. ABC Ch15. December 13, 2017.)  

Amendent I to the United States Constitution Bill Rights

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"You, Dr. Cara Christ , are 100% responsible for doing the right thing today. So do it, already."

Dr. Cara Christ.
Director, Arizona Dept. of Health Services
2015-the present.

Since her appointment to the highest ranking position in Arizona’s public health care system in 2015, Arizona Department of Health Director Dr. Cara Christ has repeatedly stated that there have been “great improvements” in the state’s sole long term public mental health care facility, Arizona State Hospital (ASH). To date however, January 2018, Dr. Christ has never provided any evidence or information about just what these “improvements” at ASH are, in fact. This is of very real concern to the staff of this publication, given that Dr. Christ’s immediate predecessor (Will Humble ADHS Director 2009-2015) willfully relied upon producing a pattern of overt and untruthful propaganda that served to delay a subsequent process of critically needed oversight and accountability at ASH. Propaganda that defied the realities specific to the ASH operation, including but not limited to preventable patient deaths, the tragic murder of a young Phoenix woman, and a wide range of patient generated concerns expressed in grievance submissions; and as such, this propaganda granted the former administrators of ASH further opportunity to continue operating of ASH in a manner deeply harmful to the welfare of the Hospital’s patient community.And as previously reported in this publication, at least three preventable deaths occurred due to this fact; had the administrators of ASH adhered to law and regulations circa 2004-2015, those deaths, and a wide range of other like wrongs, would not have occurred.

These issues have been exemplified by information provided in this blog since 2012, as well as in a number of scathing investigative findings of the staff of 
ABC Ch15 circa 2013-2015.  

———————————————————————

ASH Human Rights Committee: As to the fact that not until late 2012 was a legally required human rights panel established at The Arizona State Hospital, the delay of which (to that point in time) represents illegal defiance of the fact this this public resource has been required by bright line state law for well over 2 decades. 

As it relates to ADHS Director Will Humble, who is 100% behind the promotions of former ASH CEO Cory Nelson (now Deputy Director of ADHS/BHS's state wide authority- YIKES!), and that of current ASH CEO Donna Noriega (a proven liar, as per the findings of Arizona's behavioral health authorities, 2012-13- FOUL!); and the involvement of the long time on-site legal counsel there, Joel Rudd, of the state Attorney General's office (American/Arizona Bar Association- HELLO!).

(Originally published April 18, 2014)

Arizona Revised Statute 9-21-105. Human Rights Committees.

A. According to A.R.S. §§ 41-3803 and 41-3804, the Department shall establish human rights committees to provide independent oversight to ensure that the rights of clients and enrolled children are protected. The Department shall establish at least one human rights committee for each region and the Arizona State Hospital. Upon the establishment of a human rights committee, if more than 2,500 clients reside within a region, the Department shall establish additional human rights committees until there is one human rights committee for each 2,500 clients in a region. (See the full statute below.)

DEAR MR. (WILL) HUMBLE: As per AZ law, I would like to learn that an in-hospital Human Rights panel, represented by both members of the public as well as patients and their families, as required by state law (ARS 9-21-105), has been established and put into action by now, for in 2011 alone there were at least 15-18 requests for this to be created and arranged for by ASH executive staff; as wonderful as the news from your official blog might look to the general public, I know that the reality of patient life at ASH is anything but what the public might believe if all they can rely upon are vacuum-like statements such as your own upbeat advocacy about the health of ASH at this time. 

Thank you. ------- (PJ Reed.)

August 08, 2012.

INTRODUCTION: The requirement of ensuring reasonable public access to the overall operation of The Arizona State Hospital is one that arises in federal as well as state law. This has everything to do with the fact that each and every ASH patient is a citizen of Arizona, as well in terms of the United States; and also has clear significance in terms of the history underlying state mental institutions across the board, with specific respect for the fact that such facilities are well known as far too often operating far behind contemporary medical standards.

The core reason for this fact relates to ongoing and endemic forms of cultural discrimination against persons affected by serious mental illness and disability, and the associated fact that in places such as ASH, graphically unlawful violations of patient' rights occur as a matter of standard practice. 

At various points in the history of civil and human rights, concerns that the American public have about the affairs of persons affected by chronic disability, including with respect for persons affected by serious mental illness, congressional level legislative action has contributed to a range of bright line law(s) and policy(s) that require all states to comply with such legal standards, as seen in the Americans With Disabilities Act, and other like law. 

In this context, as per Arizona Administrative Law, which directly flows from superseding federal law, dictates the requirement of an established functioning "human rights commission" at the The Arizona State Hospital, assigned as such to respond to any patient (or patient family member, etc.) who has reason to believe their human rights have been comprised, violated, or otherwise negatively effected by staff misconduct, at all levels of employ.

In summer 2011, while hospitalized at ASH, I was advised by a very well qualified human rights advocate named John Gallagher that the Hospital was lacking in any such human rights commission, which has been required by Arizona law for nearly two decades, immediately compelling me to do whatever I could in terms of seeing that this resource be provided to the ASH patient community- myself included. I did in short time contact the Arizona department of health services administrative office by mail, and thereafter received a letter stating that the sole reason there being no such body of public resource at ASH was due to no actual interest, as in: "We have attempted to attract members of the public in order to establish a human rights commission at ASH, but there has never been any response."

 At that point in time, as an ASH patient, and given that I was limited by the rules and regulations wherein no patient has clear and unfettered access to phone usages, postal resources, etc., I was forced to leave this issue on the burner, as it were, which is only one such issue that I had to leave behind, in large part due to there not being a lawfully required Human Rights Committee (HRC) at ASH. This failure of the state to establish an active HRC at ASH directly contributed to the how and why underlying ASH's success in keeping the May, 2011, escape of Jesus Rincon Murietta secret and well out of public awareness, which did, in fact, as directly contribute to the consequent death of April Mott that following August. (See this blog: The Murder of April Mott. [January 07, 2018]; A Modern Horror Story [April 05, 2012]

In the months immediately following my February 2012 discharge from ASH, I made a point of directing no less than three formal  letters of concern about the matter to the ADHS/BHS legal administrative legal office, as well as the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals, and ultimately, to Will Humble, ADHS current Director. The subsequent story precedes as follows, beginning with a very recent exposure of the continuing failure of ASH administrators to abide by this area of law, as it stands. 

"AZ mental hospital oversight committee claims officials blocking them from doing work." By David Biscobing. ABC Ch15. April 11, 2014.

“A special oversight board created to look into abuse and human rights issues for patients at the Arizona state mental hospital is being blocked from doing its work by state officials, according to several members…. A patient died. There are patients who are being mistreated. There are patients who are suffering because of understaffing, and we can’t discuss that,” said Sharon Ashcroft, a member of the Arizona State Hospital Human Rights Committee…. There are five human right committees (HRC) in Arizona – one for different regions of the state and another specifically for the state hospital. The HRCs are oversight boards given their authority by the state legislature….Several members of the state hospital HRC testified before the Senate Health Committee on February 26. They gave blistering statements and accused state hospital officials of preventing them from doing their work.  (Excerpt- for full story, please see: http://www.abc15.com)

--------------------------------------------

UPDATE 2014: As stated above, and as a matter of documented fact, I formally requested that Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble immediately address the absence of a legally required citizen based human rights, this following my 13 full of being subjected to grossly unlawful staff misconduct as an ASH patient, January 2010-February 2012. During that period of time, I was advised by an outside source that such a panel was required by AZ law and policy, but no attempt on my part to see that this issue be addressed was given due attention by state officials working in ADHS. Thus, in addition to a formal hard copy letter to the man, I did formally submit the following commentary to Will Humble's so called "blog", which apparently contribute to the lawfully required establishment of a Human Rights Commission at ASH (see (2) below):

AZ Dept. of Health Services Director's Blog. Will Humble, ADHS Director

Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

August 2, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Dear Mr. Humble: Two questions, and only two, which I will be really surprised to see you answer in good faith. But, if you can and do in fact offer some nature of honest statement in response, then I and my peer-assocaties will greatly appreciate your time and effort in this context: 

(1) I would love to hear input from ASH staff (other than executive staff, please, ideally your BHTs and non-supervisoral nursing staff, all of whom work closer to the patients that any other ASH staff) about these “Culture of Care” approaches, e.g. the “Non Violent Crisis Intervention"; as you surely know, many of these good hearted staff persons are very, very disturbed by the impacts of these changes, with particular respect for the marked increase in patient-on-patient violence, as well as direct threats to staff.

(2) As per AZ law, I would like to learn that an in-hospital Human Rights panel, represented by both members of the public as well as patients and their families, as per the requirements of state law (ARS 9-21-105), has been established and put into action by now, for in 2011 alone there were at least 15-18 requests for this to be created and arranged for by ASH executive staff; as wonderful as the news from your official blog might look to the general public, I know that the reality of patient life at ASH is anything but what the public might believe if all they can rely upon are vacuum-like statements such as your own upbeat advocacy about the health of ASH at this time.

In closing, sir, and will all due respect, I plead with you to present your responses in public, ideally through your blog in clear and simple language, and feel free to use my name, even my true name (and not my pseudonym- I know that you know exactly who I am). It is never too late to do the right thing, no tin my world, at least. . And for what is it worth, the Joint Commission is definitely part of a certain loop today (for the first time in my experience as an advocate, and not for publicizing a seemingly mythical description of how ASH should be ran, but rather in terms of the voices of patients and staff, who tell the true story). 

Thank you. ----------- (PJ Reed)

------------------------------------------------------

NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ABOVE COMMENTARY TO WILL HUMBLE'S BLOG WAS NEVER PUBLISHED BY HE AND HIS BUTT HEADED STAFF.

But at some point within the next 6-8 months of the above direct communication with Humble, I became aware that a Human Rights Commiitte (phad been assembled at The Arizona State Hospital, as per the law. And within 4 weeks of the establishment of this panel, I began providing data to one member of that panel, whose name I will leave out of the record (at this time). Sadly, I subsequently found this representative of the newly formed panel effectively refused to take my input to heart, to such an extent that I determined (yet again) that ASH was failing to meet its lawfully required obligations in the context. It was clear to me that despite my success in bringing about the establishment of an active HRC at ASH, there were still far too many shortfalls specific to the function of HRC at that time. On the basis of my prior experiences as they stood, with direct relation to the ineptitude of all ADHS/BHS/ASH authorities that I had witnessed, I thus ceased to directly communicate with that person in early 2013.

Much more recently (early 2014), I was contacted by a separate and current member of HRC,  who informed me that her review of this blog had confirmed issues that she had identified; and she did in fact seek my assistance in further addressing these issues across the board. I  subsequently agreed to reengage in a good faith flow of communication with that person, and the HRC in general. This flow of communication also led to ABC Ch 15's executive investigative reporter David Biscobing- who I have been collaborating with for over a full year- taking an interest in the HRC panel. And as the above ABC Ch 15 article illustrates, things are looking up, in a manner of speaking. But is still quite clear that much work still needs to be done in terms of holding the Rat Bastards at ASH and in the broader ADHS construct accountable, as per the letter of law.

IN CLOSING: A big thanks to David Biscobing and Sharon Ashcroft. As a former member of the ASH patient community, and a current member of our nation's mentally ill community, I cannot say loudly enough how critical your participation is, in fact. These two individuals have proven themselves as willing and able to take on a task that very few other like  professionals are up to contributing to, and as per my varied experiences stand today (as an advocate for the ASH patient community), this is a matter of fact. Patient abuse and associated administrative/clinical negligence and ineptitude is as bad as it gets in the context of criminal misconduct, as established by contemporary health care ethics and law. But due to ongoing patterns of abject discrimination(s) against all/any persons affected by serious mental illness and disability, those persons in whom the public is willing to most trust in terms of overseeing the affairs of the ASH patients are currently engaging in violating virtually all elements of their responsibilities. This is and has long been occurring at the expense of AZ taxpayers, to the deep detriment of ASH patients, patient' families, and the public in general. Bottom line. 

DATELINE 2018: 

Big thanks to Sharon Ashcroft, and all other current members of the ASH Human Rights Committee. You rock! Do not be afraid of Greg Honig, Aaron Bowen, or any other such stinkers who may engage in trying to intimidate you at this time. Their given time in the realm of the experiences of ASH patients is only temporary. I assure you of that. The patients at Arizona State Hospital need you as much today as they ever have in your brief history, so again, thank you, thank you, thank you. 

It is no coincidence that we are today witnessing the same nature of authoritative corruption and directly associated abuses of authority in Arizona’s Department of Health Services (ADHS) that occurred just 4-5 years ago, corruption that did as a matter of plain fact lead to yet one more occurence of federal intervention in the operation of ASH circa that time frame. As discussed in recent articles, ASH has repeatedly been sanctioned though federal intervention four separate times over the last 20 years. Clearly, it is only due to the failure of ADHS to get the point that this specific pattern of repeated history has occurred. 

Again, and again, and again, and again right up through 2015.

The state employed attorney who personally told members of the ASH Human Rights Committee (HRC) not to include the full record of patient comments from a November, 2017, HRC meeting is named Greg Honig. This man currently works for the Arizona Office of the Attorney General (AZAG), which- of course (!)- is the same office that ASH’s former in-house legal counsel, Joel Rudd once worked for, which also is in no way coincidental. And nor is the fact that the current in-house legal counsel at ASH, Louis Caputo (Rudd’s replacement) has yet to speak out in defense of the civil rights of at least one ASH patient, that patient being the one who in late November, 2017, exercised his or her First Amendment right to voice concern over the disturbing history of ASH’s current and longstanding chief medical officer, Dr. Steven Dingle. 

The AZAG is required to enforce consumer protection and the civil rights of any citizen-consumer receiving services from all/any state agency(s) in Arizona. This does include ADHS and it’s sub-agency, Arizona State Hospital. It is also true that, in legal terms, all patients at ASH are members of a “protected special class,” this, more specifically, with direct regard for their status as disabled (by serious mental illness), and therein, being recipients of the provisions and protections provided to them by the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare [1990]). 

I would thus ask that the current Attorney General in Arizona, Mark Brnovich, act on behalf of this patient’s rights in context; and that he also take a good hard look at ADHS attorney Greg Honig, who by threatening members of the current members of the lawfully established HRC at ASH, has engaged in a gross violation of the standards by which he is licensed to practice law and to act as a representative of ADHS, which is only one such state agency that AZAG has direct legal authority over. 

And because the fact remains that all patients at ASH are disabled by mental illness, and at high risk of negligence, exploitation, and abuse, I intend, in fact, to contact Mr. Brnvich myself, just like I did his predecessor, Tom Horne, in relation to Joel Rudd’s involvement in the issues that got ASH in trouble in 2014-15. I will also contact the Arizona Bar Association, as well as the American Bar Association.

And, finally, I will again ask for the current director of ADHS, Dr. Cara Christ to do whatever she can to reverse the momentum towards yet another federal intervention at ASH. As such, the goal should not be simply to avoid such intervention, but to act on behalf of the patients in her own right, on the basis of her knowledge today that these issues are posing threat to each and every member of patient community. 

No one patient's experiences are ever unique in settings like ASH, just like mine weren't during my time as a patient there. Retaliation, overt suppressions of patient generated concerns about staff misconduct,  and other criminal like actions directed towards me and my patient-peers were prevalent on a near day in-day out basis circa my time there. And as we all know today, things have not, in fact, much improved at ASH. If at all. 

Because someone has to, and nobody else will, we the staff of PJ Reed The Arizona State Hospital and Patient Abuse will continue to forge ahead as this process plays out. 

paoloreed@gmail.com

Arizona Revised Statute R9-21-105. Human Rights Committees (in full).

A. According to A.R.S. §§ 41-3803 and 41-3804, the Department shall establish human rights committees to provide independent oversight to ensure that the rights of clients and enrolled children are protected. The Department shall establish at least one human rights committee for each region and the Arizona State Hospital. Upon the establishment of a human rights committee, if more than 2,500 clients reside within a region, the Department shall establish additional human rights committees until there is one human rights committee for each 2,500 clients in a region.

B. Each human rights committee shall be composed of at least seven and not more than 15 members. At least two members of the committee shall be clients or former clients, at least two members shall be relatives of clients, two members shall be parents of enrolled children and at least three members shall have expertise in one of the following areas: psychology, law, medicine, education, special education, social work, or behavioral health services.

C. The director shall appoint the initial members to each regional committee and the human rights committee for the Arizona State Hospital. The Director shall appoint members to fill vacancies on a human rights committee, subject to the approval of the committee.

D. Each committee shall meet at least four times each year. Within three months of its formation, each committee shall establish written guidelines governing the committee's operations. These guidelines shall be consistent with A.R.S. §§ 41-3803 and 41-3804. The adoption and amendment of the committee's guidelines shall be by a majority vote of the committee and shall be submitted to the Director for approval.

E. No employee of or individual under contract with the Department, regional authority, or service provider may be a voting member of a committee.

F. If a member of a human rights committee or the human rights committee determines that a member has a conflict of interest regarding an agenda item, the member shall refrain from:

           1. Participating in a discussion regarding the agenda item, and

           2. Voting on the agenda item.

G. Each committee shall, within its respective jurisdiction, provide independent oversight and review of:

           1. Allegations of illegal, dangerous, or inhumane treatment of clients and enrolled children;

           2. Reports filed with the committee under R9-21-203 and R9-21-204 concerning the use of seclusion, restraint, abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, accidents, or injuries;

           3. The provision of services to clients identified under R9-21-301 in need of special assistance

           4. Violations of rights of clients and enrolled children and conditions requiring investigation under Article 4 of this Chapter;

           5. Research in the field of mental health according to A.R.S. § 41-3804(E)(2); and

           6. Any other issue affecting the human rights of clients and enrolled children.

H. Within its jurisdiction, each human rights committee shall, for a client who needs special assistance, and may, for other clients and enrolled children:

          1. Make regular site visits to residential environments;

          2. Meet with the client, including a client who needs special assistance, in residential environments to determine satisfaction of the clients with the residential environments; and

          3. Inspect client records, including client records for clients who need special assistance, except as prohibited by federal or state law and a client's right to privacy.

I. A committee may request the services of a consultant or staff person to advise the committee on specific issues. The cost of the consultant or staff person shall be assumed by the Department or regional authority subject to the availability of funds specifically allocated for that purpose. A consultant or staff person may, in the sole discretion of the committee, be a member of another committee or an employee of the Department, regional authority, or service provider. No committee consultant or staff person shall vote or otherwise direct the committee's decisions.

J. Committee members and committee consultants and staff persons shall have access to client records according to A.R.S. §§ 36-509(13) and 41-3804(I). If a human rights committee's request for information or records is denied, the committee may request a review of the decision to deny the request according to A.R.S. § 41-3804(J). Nothing in this rule shall be construed to require the disclosure of records or information to the extent that such information is protected by A.R.S. § 36-445 et seq.

K. On the first day of the months of January, April, July, and October of each year, each committee shall issue a quarterly report summarizing its activities for the prior quarter, including any written objections to the Director according to A.R.S. § 41-3804(F), and make any recommendations for changes it believes the Department or regional authorities should implement. In addition, the committee may, as it deems appropriate, issue reports on specific problems or violations of client's rights. The report of a regional committee shall be delivered to the regional authority and the Division.

L. The Department shall provide training and support to human rights committees.

M. A human rights committee may request:

       1. An investigation for a client according to Article 4 of this Chapter, or

       2. A regional authority or the Arizona State Hospital, as applicable, to conduct an investigation for an enrolled child.

N. The regional authority or the Arizona State Hospital, as applicable, when requested by a human rights committee, shall conduct an investigation concerning:

       1. A client as provided in Article 4 of this Chapter, and

       2. An enrolled child.

O. A human rights committee shall submit an annual report of the human rights committee's activities and recommendations to the Director at the end of each calendar year according to A.R.S. § 41-3804(G).

Historical Note

Adopted under an exemption from A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6 pursuant to Laws 1992, Ch. 301, § 61, effective October 7, 1992; received in the Office of the Secretary of State October 14, 1992 (Supp. 92-4). Amended under an exemption from A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6 pursuant to Laws 1992, Ch. 301, § 61, effective September 30, 1993 (Supp. 93-3). Former Section R9-21-105 renumbered to R9-21-104; new Section R9-21-105 renumbered from R9-21-106 and amended by exempt rulemaking at 9 A.A.R. 3296, effective June 30, 2003 (Supp. 03-2).