Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Education
 
Board
State Board of Education
 
chapter
Regulations Governing Special Education Programs for Children With Disabilities in Virginia [8 VAC 20 ‑ 80]
Action Revisions to comply with the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004” and its federal implementing regulations.
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 6/30/2008
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
6/30/08  3:59 pm
Commenter: Lisa Fisher, parent

AGAINST Impartial Due Process Hearings - HO Appointed by VDOE - Right to Edit Decisions
 

I support this statement:The Virginia Department of Education wants to remove appointment of Hearing Officers from the Virginia Supreme Court and wants the power to edit and require re-issuance decisions rendered by Hearing Officers. This is an incredible attempt to further weaken parental rights to an impartial due process hearing and will result in an uneven "playing field" to the detriment of parents.

Since inception of Virginia's special education regulations, Hearing Officers assigned to adjudicate Due Process Hearings have been appointed and managed by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The proposed regulations at 8 VAC 20-81-210(B) remove the Supreme Court and vest sole authority with the Virginia Department of Education. The current regulation should not be changed. The Supreme Court of Virginia should continue to maintain the list and appointment of Hearing Officers for "impartial due process hearings."

To do otherwise, will not only create the "appearance of an impropriety" but is a conflict of interest that will lower the public's respect and esteem for the Virginia Board of Education and Virginia Department of Education.

In subsection 4 of that same proposed regulation, the VDOE seeks to subvert the judicial process. VDOE wants the power to review and analyze the decisions of the Hearing Officers and require that the decisions be reissued "relative to correct use of citations, readability, and other errors such as incorrect names or conflicting data, but not errors of law which are reserved for appellate review."

All litigation has "conflicting data" including conflicts in testimony, exhibits, evidence. It is the Hearing Officer's responsibility to resolve those conflicts. Considering that the Virginia Department of Education, has been a defendent in such proceedings, (and even had to pay attorneys fees to Pete Wright and tuition reimbursement to his client in one such case), it is no wonder that they might like some decisions to be rewritten.

Our state and federal constitutions created a balance of power between the judiciary, legislature, and government. Virginia Department of Education's proposed management of the impartial due process system seeks to change that balance. If this regulation is implemented, it is at risk for being ruled unconstitutional.

 

CommentID: 1733