Section 200.21. Impartial hearing officer rates and procedures for suspension or revocation of certification
(a) Impartial hearing officer rates. Commencing July 1, 1995, impartial hearing officers shall be compensated in an amount not to exceed the applicable rate prescribed in a schedule of maximum rates approved by the director of the Division of the Budget. Provided, however, that any impartial hearing officers, other than impartial hearing officers assigned by a permanent, standing administrative tribunal in a city school district having a population of one million or more inhabitants, who are appointed to conduct an accelerated review as outlined in subdivision (o) of section 200.5 of this Part shall be compensated at a flat rate of $500 per case.
(b) Procedures for the suspension or revocation of impartial hearing officer certification. The certification of impartial hearing officers is subject to suspension or revocation on the grounds of incompetence or misconduct.
(1) Complaints alleging the misconduct or challenging the competence of an impartial hearing officer must be made in a signed written statement to the commissioner and must contain a concise statement and documentation of the facts upon which the complaint is based, and must not include personally identifiable information of any student(s) related thereto.
(i) Complaints brought by a parent, school district, or a nonparty to a due process hearing must be filed within one year of the final action in the due process hearing or, where an appeal has been taken, within one year of the decision of the State Review Officer indicated in section 200.5(k) of this Part.
(ii) Jurisdiction will not be accepted where:
(a) the allegations relate to the impartial hearing officer's rulings or decision, such as incorrect reasoning or lack of a suitable rationale;
(b) the allegations raise questions about the exercise of the impartial hearing officer's discretion; or
(c) the allegations were appealed to the State Review Officer and decided by the State Review Officer, or could have been appealed to the State Review Officer pursuant to section 200.5(k) of this Part, but were not appealed.
(iii) For the purposes of this section, misconduct means that an impartial hearing officer engaged in demonstrably egregious behavior that reflects a lack of judicial temperament, such as abusive or harassing language, acting in a hostile and undignified manner, or unlawful harassment.
(iv) For the purposes of this section, incompetence means that an impartial hearing officer engaged in unreasonable conduct that resulted in a denial of due process to one or both parties to an impartial hearing.
(2) The commissioner will review all complaints to determine if they meet the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subdivision. The commissioner may dismiss any complaint, or any part thereof, that fails to meet such requirements or if an investigation is not otherwise warranted. Each complainant shall receive notification if their complaint is dismissed.
(3) Upon receipt of the complaint, the commissioner shall provide the impartial hearing officer with notice of the complaint and 30 days to respond in writing, which may include supporting evidence.
(4) The commissioner shall provide for review and, if warranted, further investigation of the complaint. The investigation process shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
(i) A copy of the complaint shall be sent to the impartial hearing officer.
(ii) The complaint investigator may request additional information from the parties as appropriate, which may include a request for an affidavit.
(iii) All relevant information shall be reviewed.
(iv) A written final decision shall be sent to the impartial hearing officer and complainant that addresses each allegation in the complaint.
(v) If, upon a review of the facts, the commissioner finds misconduct or incompetence on the part of the impartial hearing officer, the commissioner may issue a warning letter to the impartial hearing officer containing an order for corrective action, impose additional training or technical assistance to be completed by the impartial hearing officer, temporarily remove the impartial hearing officer from the list of available hearing officers required by section 200.2(e) of this Part including being ineligible to have cases reassigned to them pursuant to section 200.2(e)(1)(ii)(c) of this Part, or suspend or revoke certification of the impartial hearing officer.
(5) In addition to complaints made to the commissioner in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subdivision, the commissioner, on his or her initiative, may impose any of the remedies outlined in subparagraph (vi) of paragraph (4) of this section upon a finding that:
(i) the impartial hearing officer failed to comply with an order of the commissioner;
(ii) the impartial hearing officer failed to issue a decision in a timely manner where such delay was not due to extensions granted at the request of either party as documented in the record;
(iii) the State Review Officer determined that an impartial hearing officer engaged in conduct that constitutes misconduct or incompetence; or
(iv) the impartial hearing officer committed misconduct or incompetence.