Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 13,458

Appeal of a STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY, by his parent, from action of the Board of Education of the Canastota Central School District regarding an impartial hearing.

Decision No. 13,458

(July 25, 1995)

Hogan & Sarzynski, Esqs., attorneys for respondent, Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq., of counsel

SHELDON, Acting Commissioner.--Petitioner has filed nine separate appeals challenging various aspects of the respondent's hearing process under Education Law '4404. Because the appeals involve similar facts and law, they are consolidated for decision. The appeals must be dismissed.

Petitioner is the parent of a student with a disability who resides in the Canastota Central School District. On February 8, February 23, February 28, March 10, March 17, April 5 and April 6, 1995, petitioner made requests for impartial hearings. A hearing was scheduled for March 23, 1995 but adjourned at petitioner's request until April 1, 1995, and then again until April 11, 1995. The hearing officer combined all the above referenced hearing requests into one hearing that was conducted on April 11, May 4 and May 26, 1995. The hearing officer rendered a decision on June 17, 1995.

Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to hold timely impartial hearings in violation of federal and state regulations. He also asserts that the hearing officer was not impartial and that the hearings were not scheduled at petitioner's convenience. Respondent denies that it improperly delayed the hearings. Respondent further contends that the hearing officer was impartial and that petitioner's requests were fully considered in scheduling the hearings.

Education Law '4404(2) requires that the review of hearing officers' determinations be made by the State Review Officer (SRO). On June 17, 1995, the hearing officer rendered his determination. Therefore, whether a decision was timely rendered, whether the hearing officer was impartial or whether the hearing date was convenient, are questions that the petitioner can only raise before the SRO (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 Ed Dept Rep ___, Decision No. 13452, dated July 14, 1995). I simply have no jurisdiction to review these matters.

I must comment, however, that petitioner has filed numerous appeals to the Commissioner regarding the timeliness of impartial hearings (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 Ed Dept Rep ___; Decision No. 13452, dated July 14, 1995; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 Ed Dept Rep 500; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 34 id. 499; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 33 Ed Dept Rep 711). Such filings are frivolous and mire respondent school district in unnecessary paperwork. I strongly urge petitioner to reevaluate his actions and redirect his energy to constructive efforts to secure appropriate services for his child.

THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.

END OF FILE