ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SYSTEMS - THE CALIFORNIA VIEW

• NCJ Number: 58162
• Journal: ADMINSTRATIVE LAW REVIEW Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Dated: (FALL 1977) Pages: 487-523
• Author(s): N ABRAMS
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 37 pages
• Corporate Author: American Bar Assoc
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

DIFFERENT HEARING OFFICER SYSTEMS ARE EXAMINED IN AN EFFORT TO EVALUATE HOW WELL THEY SERVE THE GOALS OF INDEPENDENCE, EXPERTISE, AND HOW THEY AFFECT BUDGETING; GENERALIZATIONS ARE MADE FROM CALIFORNIA'S EXPERIENCES.

Abstract

A CENTRAL DILEMMA IN CURRENT THEORY UNDERLYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOCUSES ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, OR HEARING OFFICER, IS TO SIT AS A FACT FINDER WHO HEARS A MATTER, MAKES AN INITIAL DETERMINATION, AND RECOMMENDS TO THE AGENCY WHICH HAS FINAL RESPONSIBILITY. BECAUSE THE STRUCTURAL APPROACH ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA HAS EVOLVED OVER 30 YEARS, IT IS CONVENIENT TO USE THAT STATE'S DIVERSE EXPERIENCES TO DERIVE GENERAL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. HEARING OFFICERS MAY BE ATTACHED AS STAFF TO INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES, OR A SEPARATE AGENCY WITH A CENTRAL PANEL OF HEARING OFFICERS, MAY BE CREATED TO PROVIDE JUDGES TO OTHER AGENCIES AS NEEDED. CRITICISMS HAVE FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON THE NEED FOR HEARING OFFICER INDEPENDENCE. ONE RESPONSE TO THIS CONCERN MIGHT BE TO SEPARATE THE HEARING OFFICER FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY; THE MORE COMMON RESPONSE TO THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENCE, WHILE LEAVING THE HEARING OFFICER WITHIN THE AGENCY AND MAKING THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL DECISIONS. INTERAGENCY ARRANGEMENTS INVOLVING ONE AGENCY'S USE OF ANOTHER AGENCY'S HEARING OFFICER HAVE NOT PROVEN SATISFACTORY. ESTABLISHING STRUCTURALLY INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICERS MAY ALSO PROVE UNDESIRABLE. WITH REGARD TO BUDGETING CONSIDERATIONS, A GENERAL FUND APPROACH IS FAVORED BECAUSE IT GIVES HEARINGS A HIGHER PRIORITY, IMPROVES THE MORALE OF THE CENTRAL PANEL HEARING OFFICERS, AND ELIMINATES ANY DOUBT OVER INDEPENDENCE. THERE IS LITTLE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WHICH COMPARES THE COSTS OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMS; HOWEVER, IT IS POSSIBLE TO RUN A CENTRAL PANEL OPERATION WITHOUT INCURRING LARGE OVERHEAD COSTS, AS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN CALIFORNIA. ALTHOUGH EMPHASIS ON THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE HEARING OFFICER IS IMPORTANT, STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS CAN ACHIEVE A LARGE DEGREE OF FREEDOM WITHOUT CHANGING THE HEARING OFFICER'S TRADITIONAL ROLE IN THE ADMINSTRATIVE PROCESS. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. (LWM)