The documents now before us allege that this proceeding arose when petitioner filed a complaint with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission accusing a public official of violating certain provisions of ORS ch 244. The petition for judicial review tells us that on March 29, 1976, the Ethics Commission decided "to do nothing.” Petitioner seeks reversal of this decision primarily on the grounds that "[n]o hearing as provided by law was held” and "[t]he commission refused to * * * issue an advisory opinion.” The Ethics Commission has moved to dismiss petitioner’s appeal.

There is nothing in ORS ch 244 specifically mentioning appeal from decisions of the Ethics Commission. ORS ch 244 does contain two cross-references to ORS ch 183, the Administrative Procedures Act. 1 So we join the parties in assuming, without here deciding, that Ethics Commission decisions are subject to the judicial review rules stated in the APA.

Petitioner contends that the Commission proceedings should have been, but were not, in the form of a contested case hearing. Under the APA, jurisdiction to consider such a claim is in the circuit court, not this court. Wesner v. Ore. System Higher Ed., 25 Or App 837, 551 P2d 124 (June 21, 1976); Solomon v. State Land Board, 25 Or App 311, 548 P2d 1335 (1976); Herron v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 531, 546 P2d 789 (1976); N.W. Envir. Def. v. Air Poll. Auth., 16 Or App 638, 519 P2d 1271, Sup Ct review denied (1974).

The rationale of the above cases is, in essence, that this is a record-reviewing court, not a record-making *870 court. 2 Keeping this rationale in mind, it should usually be a simple matter to determine which court can review reviewable agency action. If there is a contested case hearing in which all interested parties have the opportunity to participate, with participation taking the form of sworn testimony, etc., then there is an administrative record sufficient for direct judicial review in the Court of Appeals. However, an administrative "record” consisting of anything less is insufficient for judicial review, and appeal must be to the circuit court where a judicial record can be made of the germane facts. 3

Petitioner’s further reference to the Ethics Commission’s refusal to issue an advisory opinion is based on ORS 244.280(1) 4 and ORS 183.410. 5 The latter statute does contemplate direct review in the Court of Appeals when an agency does issue a declaratory ruling. But petitioner’s complaint is that an agency did not issue a declaratory ruling. Nothing in ORS 183.410 authorizes appeal to this court in this situation.

*871 Petitioner argues that agencies "should not be permitted to avoid court of appeals review simply by failing to follow the law requiring a contested case hearing.” In response we note that all agency action that is judicially reviewable can be brought before the Court of Appeals, either directly or by an appeal from a circuit court decision. The question is not whether Court of Appeals review will be avoided, only whether it will be delayed while the litigants make a record in circuit court for us to review.

Appeal dismissed.