2 GCA § 5112: Investigation of Complaints.

(a) The Suruhanu shall investigate any complaint alleging that an act of an agency is:

(1) contrary to or inconsistent with law, regulation or agency practice;

(2) based on mistaken facts or irrelevant considerations;

(3) inadequately explained when reasons should have been revealed;

(4) inefficiently performed; or

(5) unreasonable, unfair or otherwise objectionable, even though in accordance with law.

Unless the Suruhanu at his discretion decides not to investigate a complaint because:

(1) the complainant could reasonably be expected to use another remedy or channel, and then the Suruhanu shall furnish the complainant with written instructions on the procedural steps to be taken in connection with such other remedy or channel;

(2) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith;

(3) the complaint has been too long delayed to justify present examination; and

(4) his resources are insufficient for adequate investigation in which case the Suruhanu shall refer the complaint to the proper legislative committee for investigation.

(b) The Suruhanu in his discretion may investigate any administrative act of an agency not enumerated in Subsection (a).

(c) If the Suruhanu declines to investigate a complaint he shall not be barred from reviewing on his motion acts of an agency whether or not included in the complaint.