Colorado § 12-100-123 - Hearings before board - notice - procedure - review.

§ 12-100-123. Hearings before board - notice - procedure - review.

(1) (a) The board may initiate proceedings under this article 100, either on its own motion or on the complaint of any person.

(b) The board, through the department, may employ administrative law judges on a full-time or part-time basis to conduct hearings as provided by this article 100 or on any matter within the board's jurisdiction upon such conditions and terms as the board may determine.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this article 100, all proceedings before the board with respect to the denial, suspension, or revocation of certificates or registrations issued under this article 100 shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of sections 12-20-403, 24-4-104, and 24-4-105.

(3) If, after having been served with the notice of hearing as provided for in this section, the accused fails to appear at the hearing and defend, the board may proceed to hear evidence against the accused and may enter such order as is justified by the evidence, which order shall be final unless the accused petitions for a review thereof as provided in this section. Within thirty days after the date of any order, upon a showing of good cause for failing to appear and defend, the board may reopen the proceedings and may permit the accused to submit evidence in his or her behalf.

(4) At all hearings, the attorney general of this state or one of the attorney general's designated assistants shall appear and represent the board.

(5) The decision of the board shall be by majority vote thereof.

Source: L. 2019: Entire title R&RE with relocations, (HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 814, § 1, effective October 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 12-2-125 as it existed prior to 2019.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

Power to initiate proceedings involved prior to 1977 amendment. McGee v. State Bd. of Accountancy, 169 Colo. 87, 453 P.2d 800 (1969).

This section does not violate the defendant's right of due process as the state board of accountancy is required by statute to initiate proceedings, hear evidence, and render decisions and the board has no statutory authority to use a hearing officer for such proceedings. Mertsching v. Webb, 757 P.2d 1102 (Colo. App. 1988).

Notice held sufficient. The requirements of this section were met by the notice given where appellant was timely notified of the time and place of the hearing, his right to participate, and the possible suspension or revocation of his certificate which could result from the hearing, and the citation of the statutory sections under which the board was operating, and the language "for dishonesty in the practice of public accounting and conduct discreditable to the public accounting profession" adequately set out the "nature of the charges" as required by the statute. Due process requires no more, especially where there was adequate opportunity for appellant to learn the specific details of the charges, where he had ample time to prepare his defense, and where he was able to present those defenses. Hentges v. Bartsch, 35 Colo. App. 384, 533 P.2d 66 (1975).

Notice requirements of section control over administrative procedure act. Subsection (2) is in conflict with the more detailed notice requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, the notice requirements of this subsection control. Hentges v. Bartsch, 35 Colo. App. 384, 533 P.2d 66 (1975).

The notice and hearing requirements of the APA, section 24-4-104(3), are of no significance where there is a specific statute concerning the notice and hearing requirements in proceedings before the board of accountancy. People ex rel. State Bd. of Accountancy v. McFarland, 37 Colo. App. 93, 543 P.2d 112 (1975).

Board of accountancy is not bound by technical rules on admission of documentary evidence. Hentges v. Bartsch, 35 Colo. App. 384, 533 P.2d 66 (1975).

The board is not bound by technical rules of evidence. People ex rel. State Bd. of Accountancy v. McFarland, 37 Colo. App. 93, 543 P.2d 112 (1975).

Copies of cancelled checks were competent evidence. Where two sets of copies of cancelled checks were put into evidence from separate disinterested sources, and the two sets were identical, the evidence is competent under the standards set out in the board statute and the APA. Hentges v. Bartsch, 35 Colo. App. 384, 533 P.2d 66 (1975).

Hearing alleviated prefiling prejudice. The fact that one member of the board had expressed his opinion that defendant was guilty of negligence prior to the filing of charges would not justify invalidating the final judgment of the board revoking defendant's license where the record showed the defendant was given a full and fair hearing in which evidence was presented that abundantly supported the findings of the board. People ex rel. State Bd. of Accountancy v. McFarland, 37 Colo. App. 93, 543 P.2d 112 (1975).