sr-022310-7ac7®
~;,Yo, City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: 2-23-2010
Agenda Item: ~"'~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: .Proposed Ordinance Clarifying the Role of Hearing Officers
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve on first reading the attached Ordinance
adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 1.14 in order to clarify the role of hearing
officers and hearing examiners within the City.
Executive Summary
The Council has adopted various ordinances that permit professional hearing officers or
hearing examiners to be hired, when the need arises, to preside over the administrative
appeals of various decisions or actions taken by City staff. Additionally, various high-
level City employees, such as certain City department or division heads, are also
empowered to serve as City hearing officers.
In the context of recent Code Enforcement administrative hearings, questions arose
regarding the limits of a hearing officer's authorities, especially with respect to 1) a
hearing officer's ability to determine the constitutionality of the City's laws, and 2) the
legal precedential value of a hearing officer's administrative decision. This proposed
ordinance seeks to clarify and resolve the issues identified above, by ensuring that
hearing officers and hearing examiners abide by well-established principles of
administrative law.
Background
Consistent with federal and California state constitutional mandates, the City's Municipal
Code currently authorizes outside professional hearing officers or hearing examiners to
be hired, when the need arises, to preside over the administrative appeals of various
decisions or actions taken by City staff. Additionally, various high-level City employees,
such as certain City department heads or division heads, are also empowered to serve
as City hearing officers.
1
These hearing officer presided administrative hearings are analogous to judicial actions,
except that they occur in the context of the executive function of the City. An
administrative hearing provides an opportunity for a party affected by a City decision. or
action ("Responsible Party") to fully present its position and/or objections to a neutral
arbiter (i.e. the hearing officer). The City staff involved in the underlying decision or
action would also have an opportunity to present its positions at the administrative
hearing. The hearing officer, after taking evidence from both sides, would render an
administrative decision with respect to the matter at issue. Such a decision would
constitute the final decision from the City. Any party aggrieved by an administrative
decision could seek judicial review. Examples of such administrative hearings
conducted by the City include: code enforcement hearings, permit or license revocation
hearings, and airport noise violation hearings.
Discussion
In the context of recent Code Enforcement administrative hearings, questions arose
regarding the limits of a hearing. officer's authorities, especially with respect to 1) a
hearing officer's ability to determine the. constitutionality of the City's laws, and 2) the
legal precedential value of a hearing officer's administrative decision. Additionally, a
recent hearing officer who presided over a Code Enforcement hearing knowingly
disregarded well-established federal, state and local laws and regulations. This incident
highlighted the need for the City to adopt laws to provide clearer guidance to hearing
officers for the City.
Enacting an ordinance to clearly delineate the limits of a hearing officer's authorities
within this City would serve the benefit of clearly. notifying the public, the hearing officers
and the administrative practitioners of the City's laws with respect to hearing officers'
authorities in the administrative hearing context. Additionally, such an ordinance would
enhance public trust and confidence in the City's administrative process.
2
More specifically, with respect to determining the constitutionality of local laws,. Article
III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution generally prohibits administrative bodies,
including local hearing officers, from considering the constitutionality of duly enacted
legislation. This position was recently affirmed by the California Supreme Court in
Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055. Legal staff
recommends codifying this prohibition.
With respect to the precedential value of a hearing officer's administrative decision, no
state or federal law controls in this area. Currently, local law does not set any
guidelines in this area. The Council is free to enact legislation to determine the
precedential value of a hearing officer's administrative decision. Because the City's
administrative hearings generally concern fact specific issues that have little legal
applicability for future cases, legal staff recommends that the Council declare that each
administrative decision would have no legal precedential value in future cases.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There are ho financial impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed ordinance.
Prepared by: Yibin Shen, Deputy City Attorney
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
c
Rod Gould
City Manager
Attachments:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
3
Council Meeting 02-23-2010 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADDING CHAPTER 1.14 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
HEARING OFFICER AUTHORITIES AND DECISIONS
WHEREAS, California law authorizes local agencies, including the City of Santa
Monica; to promulgate rules and regulations governing the conduct of local
administrative hearings presided by a hearing officer or a hearing examiner; and
WHEREAS, setting clear rules regarding the ..City's administrative hearing
process serves to inform and benefit the public, hearing officers/examiners and local
administrative practitioners; and
WHEREAS, the City intends for its hearing officers and hearing examiners to
adhere to well established principles of administrative law; and
WHEREAS, existing administrative law forbids administrative bodies, including
hearing officers, from determining the constitutionality of duly enacted legislation; and
WHEREAS, misconduct or violations of applicable laws by hearing examiners or
hearing officers lessens public trust and confidence in the City's administrative process
and in local government.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1
Section 1. Chapter 1.14 is hereby added to Article I of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 1.14 Administrative Hearings
Sections:
1.14.010 Hearing Officers
1.14.020 Administrative Decisions
1.14.010 Hearing Officers
In any administrative proceeding conducted by a Hearing Officer or a Hearing
Examiner pursuant to this Code:
a) The Hearing Officer or Hearing Examiner shall have no authority to consider
the constitutionality of any federal, state or local law or regulation.
b) The Hearing Officer or Hearing Examiner, in the performance of his or her
duties, shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws,
regulations and codes of conduct.
1.14.020 Administrative Decisions
a) No administrative decision issued by a Hearing Officer or a Hearing Examiner
shall establish legal precedent applicable beyond the case governed by the
decision.
b) No administrative decision shall be cited as controlling or persuasive legal
precedent in any subsequent administrative hearing in a separate case.
c) This section shall not preclude the use of an administrative decision to
establish factual issues, such as showing pattern or practice in any
proceeding.
2
Section 2. Section 1.14.010 is declaratory of existing law.
Section 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance..
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and. each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance.. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MA A J S MOU E
City orn y
3