(Editors note: In 1979, the IAALJ, then called the Illinois Association of
Administrative Hearing Officers, endorsed a statement of platform and goals.
In retrospect, this statement is as timely now as it was then.)
1. PURSUE AVENUES OF SELF-IMPROVEMENT FOR THE HEARING OFFICER IN THE FORM OF
LEGAL AND PRACTICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING.
The ultimate standard of professionalism is competence and self-concern over
one's competence. Administrative law is a fluid and rapidly changing field
of technical knowledge. It is vital to the quality of their service to the
public that hearing officers pursue and obtain continuing legal and practical
judicial education to maintain their competence. To this end, opportunities
must be offered by this society (IAALJ. Ed.) To afford hearing officers with
seminars, conferences, publications and other forms of communication to meet
this dire need.
2. ENCOURAGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FACILITIES AND
FINANCES FOR IMPROVEMENT, INCLUDING TRAINING AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL AND MATERIALS.
To be effective, hearing officers need the necessary research tools and supporting
staff commensurate with their responsibility. Hearing officers fulfill one
of the most important roles in the entire administrative process. It is they
who preside at the hearings and who, by the manner of their performance,
provide the public with the image of administrative justice. It is the hearing
officer, more than any other administrative official, who actually provides
the continuity in the development of the administrative process. If the hearing
officers are not provided with the best possible tools to carry out their
important task, the entire administrative process will suffer.
3. HEARING OFFICERS SHOULD BE COMPENSATED AT A LEVEL COMMENSURATE WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITIES THEY PERFORM.
A body of well trained and adequately compensated administrative hearing officers
with a tradition of dedicated service is indispensable to the maintenance
of the rule of law and effective administration. No one thing has contributed
more to the general disrespect for state administrative agencies than the
appointment of incompetent personnel to positions requiring expert technical
knowledge and high moral responsibilities. Unless hearing officers are permitted
to operate in a true spirit of independence and unless they are provided
with a status and pay commensurate with their duties, administrative justice
will invariably fail. To obtain and retain a competent and superior administrative
judicial staff, it is necessary to at least provide such compensation to
the hearing officers which is commensurate with that paid attorneys in private
industry with similar qualifications.
4. TITLE OF THE HEARING OFFICER SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
The administrative law judge title recognizes and gives emphasis to the fact
that the hearing officer is in fact a judge and a trier of fact and law.
The title adds dignity to the proceedings and helps provide essential judicial
decorum.
5. HEARING OFFICER QUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE MINIMALLY THAT OF AN ATTORNEY,
LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF EMPLOYMENT, WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED SUPERIOR
MORAL, ETHICAL AND INTELLECTUAL ACHIEVEMENT.
Besides the high moral and ethical standards imposed on the selection of attorneys,
lawyers are best trained in the necessary areas of the law to provide the
necessary decisiveness and intellectual ability essential to the highest
ideal of justice. It is recognized that because of specialized training and
experience, various lay persons have shown themselves to be capable administrative
hearing officers. When a legislative or executive standard for hearing officer
qualifications is imposed, these lay personnel should be protected by a suitable "grandfather" provision.
6. HEARING OFFICERS MUST, TO THE GREATEST POSSIBLE EXTENT, BE INDEPENDENT AND
IMMUNE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES OVER WHICH THEY ADJUDICATE.
The ultimate standard of due process is that there must be provided a fair
and impartial hearing by an independent hearing officer. There is always
the danger, because of philosophical difference, political influence and
prejudice, that because of the power to reward and punish the hearing officer,
management may destroy the impartiality of the administrative judicial system
and the hearing officer's independence of judgment.
7. COMPETENCY LEVELS OF HEARING OFFICERS MUST BE ENFORCED.
While the application of the above goals will mean that many more hearing officers
meet the necessary high standards of ability, character, temperament and
training than otherwise, it is an inexorable fact that the hearing officer
will be appraised not on the basis of his strongest associates, but of his
weakest. It is the obligation of everyone connected with the system of administrative
justice to prevent the appointment of arbitrary of otherwise unqualified
hearing officers; to endeavor to persuade hearing officers conducting their
offices poorly that they can do better; and to provide for a system for the
removal and discipline of hearing officers who, by reason of health, age,
temperament, competency or otherwise, are unfit to perform their duties.
8. TO ENFORCE THE ABOVE STANDARDS AND TO INSURE THE INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY
OF THE HEARING OFFICER, A SEPARATE AND UNAFFILIATED HEARING AGENCY SHOULD
BE FORMED WITH A CENTRAL CORPS OF HEARING OFFICERS.
The central corps concept regarding an independent hearings agency, of which
all hearing officers would belong, has received its strongest criticism from
those who contend that the specialization and specific technical knowledge
of the hearing officer would be sacrificed. This would not necessarily occur
if hearing officers were assigned to a particular agency but protected from
interference by civil service status and the fact that the hearing officer
is not responsible to that agency for hiring, firing, promotion or demotion.
Those administrative agencies which have few hearings would be aided by this
system because it would provide a central corps of administrative law judges
for them to utilize as needed.