Note: Provided below is a job class description and minimum qualification. To view this information for other State of Colorado positions, please visit the job classifications and minimum qualifications page.
Class Description
Valid as of: July 1, 2015
This class series uses three levels in the Professional Services occupational group and describes professional work in presiding over hearings of factual and legal issues and rendering decisions and orders pertaining to the application of law and regulations. Professional work is analytical and evaluative in nature. Decisions require the creative and conceptual application of theory and principles of a professional occupational field. A professional field is one in which knowledge is gained by completion of an advanced course of study resulting in a college degree or equivalent specialized experience. The factors determine the level within this series.
HEARINGS OFFICER I (H5F1IX)
Concept of Class
This class describes the entry level. Positions perform tasks that are structured and designed to provide training and experience. Tasks are performed under direct supervision and detailed instruction and guidance is received. Employees in this class learn to apply theories and principles of the professional field. Positions do not remain at this level indefinitely.
HEARINGS OFFICER II (H5F2TX)
Concept of Class
This class describes the fully-operational level. Positions operate independently in presiding over the full range of hearings. Work requires the use of discretion within limits of theory and principles of the profession; management’s program objectives; law and regulations; and, general systems and guidelines. Judgment is used in the adaptation and skilled application of guidelines to solve the full range of problems related to the assignment. Positions design work process which requires the creative application of relevant theory to draw analogies and approximations. An employee in this class must anticipate and analyze the impact and consequences of decisions made. Positions may serve as a resource to others or a specialist in the professional field. Many assignments will not move beyond this level.
Factors
Allocation must be based on meeting all of the three factors as described below.
Decision Making
The decisions regularly made are at the process level, as described here. Within limits set by professional standards, the agency's available technology and resources, hearings process, and program objectives and regulations established by a higher management level, choices involve determining the process, including designing the set of operations used to complete and conduct different types of hearings. The general pattern, program, or system exists but must be individualized to plan and hear cases. This individualization requires analysis of data that is complicated. Analysis is breaking the problem or case into parts, examining these parts, and reaching conclusions that result in work processes. This examination requires the application of known and established statutes, case law, regulations, rules, prior court decisions, theory, due process principles, conceptual models, professional standards, and legal precedents in order to determine their relationship to the problem. For example, a position renders decisions on cases by hearing and analyzing facts pertinent to the case, determining relevant issues, and determining applicable law. New processes or objectives require approval of higher management or the agency with authority and accountability for the program or system.
Complexity
The nature of, and need for, analysis and judgment is formulative, as described here. Positions evaluate the relevance and importance of pertinent statutes, case law, regulations, rules, prior court decisions, theories, concepts, and principles in order to tailor them to develop a different approach or plan to fit specific circumstances. While general policy, precedent, or non- specific practices exist, they are inadequate and are therefore relevant only through approximation or analogy. In conjunction with theories, concepts, and principles, positions use judgment and resourcefulness in tailoring the existing guidelines so they can be applied to particular circumstances and to deal with emergencies. For example, a position evaluates the relevance of statutes, case law, and other guidelines along with prior court decisions, arguments, and evidence in order to render decisions in specific cases.
Line/Staff Authority
The direct field of influence the work of a position has on the organization is as an individual contributor. The individual contributor may explain work processes and train others. The individual contributor may serve as a resource or guide by advising others on how to use processes within a system or as a member of a collaborative problem-solving team. This level may include positions performing supervisory elements that do not fully meet the criteria for the next level in this factor.
HEARINGS OFFICER III (H5F3XX)
Concept of Class
This class describes the supervisory level. Positions in this class are accountable for the work product of a unit, including direct control over the work of others. The Hearings Officer III differs from the Hearings Officer II on the Line/Staff Authority factor.
Factors
Allocation must be based on meeting all of the three factors as described below.
Decision Making
The decisions regularly made are at the process level, as described here. Within limits set by professional standards, the agency's available technology and resources, hearings process, and program objectives and regulations established by a higher management level, choices involve determining the process, including designing the set of operations used to complete and conduct different types of hearings. The general pattern, program, or system exists but must be individualized to plan and hear cases. This individualization requires analysis of data that is complicated. Analysis is breaking the problem or case into parts, examining these parts, and reaching conclusions that result in work processes. This examination requires the application of known and established statutes, case law, regulations, rules, prior court decisions, theory, due process principles, conceptual models, professional standards, and legal precedents in order to determine their relationship to the problem. For example, a position renders decisions on cases by hearing and analyzing facts pertinent to the case, determining relevant issues, and determining applicable law. New processes or objectives require approval of higher management or the agency with authority and accountability for the program or system.
Complexity
The nature of, and need for, analysis and judgment is formulative, as described here. Positions evaluate the relevance and importance of pertinent statutes, case law, regulations, rules, prior court decisions, theories, concepts, and principles in order to tailor them to develop a different approach or plan to fit specific circumstances. While general policy, precedent, or non- specific practices exist, they are inadequate and are therefore relevant only through approximation or analogy. In conjunction with theories, concepts, and principles, positions use judgment and resourcefulness in tailoring the existing guidelines so they can be applied to particular circumstances and to deal with emergencies. For example, a position evaluates the relevance of statutes, case law, and other guidelines along with prior court decisions, arguments, and evidence in order to render decisions in specific cases.
Line/Staff Authority
The direct field of influence the work of a position has on the organization is as a unit supervisor. The unit supervisor is accountable, including signature authority, for actions and decisions that directly impact the pay, status, and tenure of three or more full-time equivalent positions. At least one of the subordinate positions must be in the same series or at a comparable conceptual level. The elements of formal supervision must include providing documentation to support recommended corrective and disciplinary actions, signing performance plans and appraisals, and resolving informal grievances. Positions start the hiring process, interview applicants, and recommend hire, promotion, or transfer.
Entrance Requirements
Minimum entry requirements and general competencies for classes in this series are contained in the State of Colorado Department of Personnel & Administration website.
For purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the essential functions of specific positions are identified in the position description questionnaires and job analyses.
History of Changes Made to Class Description
The following is a summary of changes made to this class description.
- June 30, 2015
Updated and removed the purpose of contact.
- Effective July 1, 2002
Abolished vacant Hearings Officer IV (H5F4). Published as proposed 1/18/2002.
- Effective September 1, 1998
PS consolidation study consolidated Appeals Referee (H5B) and Hearings Officer (H5C). Published draft 2/17/1998 and proposed 3/20/1998.
- Effective September 1, 1993
Job Evaluation System Revision project. Published as proposed 6/1/1993. Republished Appeals Referee 9/1/1994 as result of appeal.
- Revised August 24, 1988
Changed grade, class specification, and minimum qualifications for Appeals Referee I and II (A8976-77).
- Revised September 1, 1984
Changed salary relationship for Appeals Referee I and II (A8976-77).
- Revised July 1, 1982
Changed grade, relationship, and class specification for Appeals Referee I (A8976). Created Appeals Referee II (A8777).
- Revised February 1, 1982
Changed nature of work and entrance requirements for Motor Vehicle Hearings Officer A, B, and C (A7131-33).
- Revised September 1, 1980
Changed entrance requirements.
- Revised July 1, 1979
Change in relationship for Chief Motor Vehicle Hearings Officer (A7136).
- Created January 1, 1975
Motor Vehicle Hearings Officer A, B, C, (A7131-33) Assistant Chief Motor Vehicle Hearings Officer (A7134), Chief Motor Vehicle Hearings Officer (A7136), and Appeals Referee (A8976).
Summary of Factor Ratings
| Class Level | Decision Making | Complexity | Line/Staff Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearings Officer I | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Hearings Officer II | Process | Formulative | Individual Contributor |
| Hearings Officer III | Process | Formulative | Unit Supervisor |
Minimum Qualifications
Valid as of: February 21, 2024
This document includes the following levels:
| Class Title | Class Code |
|---|---|
| Hearings Officer I | H5F1IX |
| Hearings Officer II | H5F2TX |
| Hearings Officer III | H5F3XX |
HEARINGS OFFICER I (H5F1IX)
Experience Only:
Six (6) years of relevant experience in an occupation related to the work assigned to this position
OR
Education and Experience:
A combination of related education and/or relevant experience in an occupation related to the work assigned equal to six (6) years.
HEARINGS OFFICER II (H5F2TX)
Experience Only:
Seven (7) years of relevant experience in an occupation related to the work assigned to this position
OR
Education and Experience:
A combination of related education and/or relevant experience in an occupation related to the work assigned equal to seven (7) years.
HEARINGS OFFICER III (H5F3XX)
Experience Only:
Nine (9) years of relevant experience in an occupation related to the work assigned to this position
OR
Education and Experience:
A combination of related education and/or relevant experience in an occupation related to the work assigned equal to nine (9) years.
History of Changes Made to Minimum Qualification
The following is a summary of changes made to this minimum qualification.
- Feb. 21, 2024 (Whole Document)
- New format (updating to adhere to accessibility standards)
- Updated minimum qualifications to align with the Skills-based Hiring initiative
- July 1, 2018 (H5F1XX Changed to H5F1IX)
Review and correction of the classification codes to align with the 2018-19 pay plan and compensation grades approved by the CHRO.
- June 1, 2017 (Whole Document)
- Part of the 2017 MQ Project
- New format
- Standardized language and made the substitution statements consistent with a year-for-year methodology for both experience and education