Opinion ID: 1684540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Hearing Officer's Decision To Remain With The Tribunal During Deliberations.

Text: Finally, the Board raises issue with the hearing officer's decision to stay with the tribunal during its deliberations. The record reveals that the hearing officer stayed with the tribunal in order to answer any legal questions that the members may have had and to serve as a scribe in order to help the tribunal render a written decision. The Board argues that KRS 161.790 only allows the hearing officer to control procedural matters and that answering questions about the law and serving as a scribe do not fall within the ambit of that authority. The Board also argues more generally that ex parte communications with the tribunal are forbidden and prejudicial. While the Board is correct in pointing out that the hearing officer's authority is limited to prehearing and procedural matters and that remaining with the tribunal during its deliberations is not technically a procedural matter, we think that it is a reasonable exercise of the hearing officer's power absent some showing of prejudice or a rule expressly prohibiting such conduct. Again, we note that KRS 13B.080(1) requires that a hearing officer shall preside over the conduct of an administrative hearing and shall regulate the course of the proceedings in a manner which will promote the orderly and prompt conduct of the hearing. Much like the use of instructions approved above, the hearing officer's decision to stay with the tribunal during its deliberations is consistent with KRS 13B.100. The question then becomes whether the practice is expressly forbidden or is prejudicial to a party. The Board cites to KRS 13B.100 as proof that the hearing officer is expressly prohibited from staying with the tribunal. KRS 13B.100(1) provides: Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters specifically authorized by statute, a hearing officer shall not communicate off the record with any party to the hearing or any other person who has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the hearing, concerning any substantive issue, while the proceeding is pending. The Board's invocation of KRS 13B.100, however, is a red herring. The purpose of the statute is to prevent ex parte communications between interested parties and the hearing officer. The tribunal enabling statute requires that the tribunal be composed from a pool of neutral persons. [45] As such, even a literal reading of KRS 13B.100 would not bar ex parte communications between the hearing officer and the tribunal. Moreover, we note that the tribunal enabling statute is unusual in that it divides the administrative authority and responsibilities between the three-member tribunal and a hearing officer  a situation not contemplated by KRS 13B.100. In most administrative proceedings, however, the hearing officer rules on procedural and substantive matters. KRS 13B.100(1) assumes that this is the case. Rather than requiring a bar on ex parte communication, this simply means that it makes sense, for the purposes of KRS 13B.100(1), to treat the hearing officer and the tribunal as a single entity. Communication among the members of that entity is not prohibited by KRS 13B.100. The Board also cites to Stinson v. State Board of Accountancy [46] to show that ex parte contact between the officer who presides over a hearing and the entity that actually decides the issues presented is inherently prejudicial. Stinson involved an administrative hearing before the State Board of Accountancy where the attorney for the board elected to remain with the board during its deliberations in order to take notes to facilitate drafting an order. The Court of Appeals stated: [W]hile we hesitate to call [the attorney's] presence during the deliberations reversible error, we do question the propriety of his presence .... [W]hile the Board's attorney may be available for answering a question of a statutory or procedural nature, we do not think that his presence during the actual deliberations is necessary and could, in some circumstances, certainly operate to the detriment of one brought before the Board. [47] The Court of Appeals then noted, however, that the presence of an interested attorney is not reversible error if such presence would not have affected the outcome of the case. [48] And though the Court of Appeal's statement in Stinson about the impropriety of having the board's attorney present during deliberations certainly makes sense, it is inapplicable to this case because the hearing officer is not an interested party. The attorney in Stinson was an interested party because he, in effect, prosecuted the case against the accountant. That would be analogous, in this case, to having the Board of Education's attorney present with the tribunal during its deliberations. But as the circuit court recognized, the hearing officer does not represent either party. The hearing officer functions only to serve and to assist the tribunal; this function can extend into the tribunal's deliberations. Unless it can be shown that the hearing officer is not neutral, and is somehow an interested party, his or her presence during the tribunal's deliberations is not prejudicial, and thus is not error.