The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) has functioned since 1979 as a central tribunal with the authority to conduct administrative hearings for any agency, board or commission of the city. OATH was established by Executive Order No. 32 in 1979, to professionalize the administrative hearing system serving city government. To secure this objective, OATH was meant to function as an independent agency of government so that its judges would not be unduly influenced by the prosecutor or petitioning agency.

OATH was made a Charter agency in 1988, as part of the Charter revisions which enacted the City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). Among CAPA's primary reforms was the adoption of minimum standards for the conduct of administrative hearings and the establishment of OATH as the city's presumptive independent tribunal. Charter section 1048 states that OATH "shall conduct adjudicatory hearings for all agencies of the city, unless otherwise provided for by executive order, rule, law or collective bargaining agreements"(emphasis added).

Thus, the Charter envisions a broad and remedial mandate for OATH, as confirmed by the Report of the Charter Revision Commission, Vol. 2 at p. 103 (April 1989):

"The purpose of formalizing OATH in the charter is to establish an independent adjudicative body that can be a resource to agencies in conducting their adjudications, while at the same time establishing an independent structure outside of the agency to provide an unbiased assessment of the matters to be adjudicated".

Removing adjudications from within agencies was a primary objective of the Charter revisers. Independence of the decision maker from the prosecuting agency invites a higher level of confidence in the fairness of the adjudicative process. The Charter revisers secured this objective by granting five-year terms of office to OATH's administrative law judges "to enhance their impartiality and the respect accorded to their decisions." Report of the Charter Revision Commission, Vol. 2 at p. 104 (April 1989).

STRUCTURE OF OATH

Administrative adjudication is a "quasi-judicial" process: that is, a judicial function conducted within the executive branch of government. Full administrative due process takes the form of a trial or hearing in which an administrative law judge serves as the trier of fact. And, similar to the role of the courts, independent administrative tribunals like OATH serve as a protective barrier to unwarranted or improvident executive action.

The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings is a central tribunal, a modern revision of traditional administrative law. Generally, an administrative hearing is held when a governmental agency seeks to take an action that affects certain legally protected rights. Traditionally, in both federal and state agencies, the hearing was conducted by a hearing officer who was an employee of the same agency that was taking the disputed action. The agency's advocate and the hearing officer were often seen as colleagues within the same agency.

Modern administrative law is moving away from such internal hearing officers and toward central tribunals such as OATH. In a central tribunal system, the judges are fully independent of the agencies whose advocates appear before them; the judge has the same relationship with the prosecution as with the defense. Although some 26 states have moved at least partially to central panel systems, OATH is the country's first municipal central panel. Chicago and most recently the District of Columbia have also established central tribunals.

The hearing officer of traditional administrative law proceedings heard only cases involving the agency that employed the hearing officer, whereas OATH has the authority to conduct adjudications on behalf of all city agencies. In fact, section 1048 of the City Charter creates the presumption that all city agencies’ administrative trials will be referred to OATH for adjudication “unless otherwise provided for by executive order, rule, law or pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.” Thus, OATH has jurisdiction to hear administrative cases referred by any city agency, board or commission, or any state-created authority or other entity that is fully or partly city-funded.

THE NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Trials at OATH are open to the public. The parties are entitled to be represented by attorneys, and most parties do retain counsel, although OATH's procedures were designed to be easily usable by lawyers, non-lawyer advocates and pro se litigants. OATH’s procedures relax the technical rules of evidence and procedure that would apply in court proceedings, but nonetheless, administrative law judges wear judicial robes while presiding over OATH trials with the same decorum and formality as is found in courts.

Most OATH cases are conferenced before trial. At a conference, usually held on the same day as trial, an administrative law judge other than the trial judge meets with the parties and their representatives to see whether the case can be settled amicably, without the need for a trial. Settlement avoids much of the "adversariness" inherent in trials, while offering a faster and more efficient means of case disposition.

OATH trials generally follow traditional trial sequence: opening statements, each party’s direct case with cross-examination by the other party, and closing arguments. In most cases, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, who must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence - the same standard applied in most civil lawsuits in court. Trials are digitally recorded, and verbatim transcripts are prepared for use by the administrative law judges in making their decisions, and for use in any appeals. OATH proceedings are governed by rules of practice published in title 48 of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY).

OATH decisions include findings of fact, conclusions of law, and, where the petitioner prevails, grant of relief such as a penalty against the respondent or an award to the petitioner. Many cases are referred to OATH for recommended decisions, and therefore the findings, conclusions and relief are proposed to the deciding authority, usually the head of the agency that referred the case. Other cases are referred to OATH for final decisions, in which the findings, conclusions and relief are administratively final, and can be appealed only to the New York State Supreme Court. Still other cases are hybrids, referred to OATH for final findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for recommended relief.

OATH's decisions are almost always sustained by agency heads and appellate tribunals. In FY 2005, agency heads adopted 99 percent of OATH's findings and rejected just 16 percent of the recommended dispositions. OATH’s decisions also enjoy a high affirmance rate before the City Civil Service Commission and in the courts.

Initially, after OATH was created by executive order in 1979, the caseload consisted almost entirely of disciplinary cases brought by city agencies against their employees. However, with the 1988 Charter revisions, which gave OATH general jurisdiction, the caseload began to diversify considerably. City agencies began referring various matters pertaining to their licensing, regulatory and enforcement authority, and OATH began to hear cases involving city contractors, including the final resolution of contract disputes heard by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board. In 2004, as a result of court rulings including the Second Circuit's decision in Krimstock v. Kelly, OATH acquired jurisdiction over "probable validity" hearings conducted after the NYPD seizes the vehicles of drivers accused of DWI. According to the courts, such a person is entitled to a prompt hearing to determine whether or not the City's retention of such a vehicle before a court has formally made it the property of the City (an action called "forfeiture") is lawful and necessary. Although OATH is a mayoral agency, its reputation for impartiality and professionalism led numerous non-mayoral agencies to refer cases in increasing numbers.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

OATH is undertaking two major initiatives to expand the services that we offer. These two initiatives, the Center for Mediation Services and the Administrative Judicial Training Institute, are innovations that OATH is excited about bringing to City government. By always striving to improve, OATH will continue to be recognized as a premier example of effective and responsive government.

CENTER FOR MEDIATION SERVICES

In 2003, OATH established the Center for Mediation Services (Center) to mediate workplace disputes quickly and effectively. The Center utilizes mediation as a means to improve workplace conflicts by providing a forum in which complaints can be promptly addressed. Early resolution of these disputes is expected to reduce litigation and its attendant costs.

The Center's first stream of cases was referred by the Police Department's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) through its Early Redress Mediation Program. The OEEO sought to provide mediation services to Police Department personnel in the early stages of selected discrimination allegations. The Center was chosen to provide the mediation services for this program because of OATH's reputation for fairness and impartiality. Once a dispute is referred, the Center contacts the parties to explain the mediation process and schedule the mediation. Since its inception, the OEEO has referred numerous cases to the Center. Of the cases mediated, 85% have been successfully resolved. The program allows for creative solutions to everyday workplace disputes, without personnel record entries or other formal disciplinary charges being filed.

The Center is designed to provide mediation participants with a safe, neutral, balanced and private setting to discuss and come to a mutual resolution of the issues in dispute. A full time Director was hired in March 2005 to enhance and coordinate the range of conflict resolution services offered through the Center. Mediation at the Center is voluntary and confidential. Mediation sessions are held at OATH's office in a comfortable conference room setting. At the mediation, each participant has the opportunity to express his or her concerns to the other side and to the mediators. The mediators facilitate conversation between the parties, highlighting points of friction (the issues), helping the parties to understand the underlying motivators (interests), and, ultimately exploring potential solutions to resolve the dispute. After the mediation, the mediators invite the participants to evaluate the mediation.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

On January 7, 2005, OATH coordinated and hosted the first ALJ training program for forty supervising administrative law judges and hearing officers from nine City tribunals. The gathering was the first time in the history of the City that supervisors from the different tribunals had convened for training on best management practices by experts in the field. The success of this first training program prompted Deputy Mayor Robles Román to call upon OATH to develop additional ALJ training programs and resulted in the establishment of the Administrative Judicial Training Institute at OATH.

The Institute's mission is to provide ethics and skills training to the City's administrative judiciary in order to enhance the performance and professionalism of the City's administrative tribunals. The Institute has created training models and established a dialogue with experts in various fields, allowing it to conduct classes addressing ethics, technology, evidence and trial procedure. The Institute shares the same goals set for the New York State Judicial Institute -- to provide ongoing training to judges. Chief Judge Kaye found that ongoing training increases the skills of jurists and improves the efficiency of the state court system. We seek the same result – the improved efficiency and professionalism of the City's administrative tribunals.