What aspect of administrative agencies is criticized for leading to inconsistent enforcement?

The aspect of administrative agencies that is criticized for leading to inconsistent enforcement is primarily related to the use of consent orders as the final action for illegal conduct. When administrative agencies rely heavily on consent orders to resolve issues, it often means that there is an absence of a formal adjudication or trial. This can result in a lack of public accountability and transparency, leading to different outcomes for similar cases based simply on the negotiation capabilities of the involved parties. When agencies are perceived to favor consent orders, it can create disparities in enforcement because not all violators may face the same consequences, and thus, similar infractions may not receive comparable penalties. This inconsistency can erode public trust and lead to the perception that enforcement is arbitrary rather than equitable.

In contrast, while excessive paperwork or a lack of clear communication can hinder the operational efficiency of agencies, they do not directly result in inconsistency in enforcement outcomes. Also, outdated regulations can contribute to enforcement issues, but they are more likely to lead to dysfunction in regulatory frameworks rather than to inconsistent enforcement per se. Therefore, the reliance on consent orders is most directly linked to the criticism of inconsistent enforcement within administrative agencies.