Special Education Update: Latest Budget Bill Draft Includes Troubling Special Education Provisions

Special Education Update: Latest Budget Bill Draft Includes Troubling Special Education Provisions

by | Jun 20, 2023 | General, Legislation, Special Education

On June 8, 2023, the Senate Finance Committee released its draft of the HB 33, the state biennium budget bill. The draft contained some unfortunate proposals that will impact special education if passed in the final version of the bill, which is expected by the end of June. This article is current as of June 15, but the budget is moving quickly to its conclusion as the final conference committee completes its work and sends the bill to the Governor. Stay tuned for additional updates and possible changes.

Scholarship Changes
In addition once again expanding the EdChoice program by more than $373 million over two years, the Senate Finance Committee’s proposed bill also expands the Autism Scholarship Program (ASP) to any child who has been “identified” with autism by the child’s resident school district, or who receives services through an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) that are related to autism. Perhaps most concerning, the proposed bill would require school districts to develop “education plans” for a child who is eligible for a scholarship based on a diagnosis of autism, but who does not have an IEP. As districts are well aware, many students have received a medical diagnosis of autism at some point in their childhood yet are determined not eligible for an IEP or even a Section 504 plan because they do not demonstrate a need for special education and related services or any type of accommodations and modifications. This proposal requires development of an “education plan” regardless of need. Further, it provides students with access to the ASP even though they have not demonstrated eligibility for special education.

Both the House and current Senate budget proposals include an increase to the Jon Peterson Scholarship as well. The current version of the bill includes the following:
• Increases the base amount from $6,414 to $7,190
• Increases the Category 1 amount from $1,562 to $1,751
• Increases the Category 2 amount from $3,963 to $4,442
• Increases the Category 3 amount from $9,522 to $10,673
• Increases the Category 4 amount from $12,707 to $14,243
• Increases the Category 5 amount from $17,209 to $19,290
• Increases the Category 6 amount from $25,370 to $28,438
• Increases the maximum scholarship award (capped amount) from $27,000 to $30,000

Special Education Transportation
One of the most unfortunate provisions of the Senate’s version is a requirement that school districts provide transportation as a related service to students with disabilities who live within the district but attend a nonpublic school if the school district is provided with supporting documentation in the student’s IEP, individual service plan, or academic support plan. This change may further exacerbate transportation challenges for districts already struggling to provide transportation to their enrolled students. The current version does expand a district’s ability to use vans to transport students in certain circumstances, which is helpful (if it remains in the bill; reports suggest that it may be removed).

The governor’s version of the bill contains language that would extend the formula for determining special education transportation payments into FY 2024 and FY 2025 and increases the minimum state share percentage for traditional school district payments from 33.33% to 37.5% in FY 2024, and to 41.67% in FY 2025. The bill would extend these increases to educational service centers as well. However, the Senate Finance Committee made changes to the traditional district foundation aid formula which ultimately decreases the percentage share earmarked for special education transportation by $3 million in FY 2024 and $2 million in FY 2025. Likewise, the governor proposed an increase for funding preschool special education which was offset in part by the Senate Committee’s proposed change to the foundation aid formula.

Seizure Action Plans
The House introduced language in HB 33 that would require school districts to develop seizure action plans for each student with an active seizure disorder diagnosis. The Senate Committee maintained this language in its version. The proposed law also contains a training requirement: every two years, districts would need to ensure that at least one other employee besides the school nurse is trained to implement a seizure action plan. The proposal includes language that expressly extends qualified immunity to employees who carry out the plans in good faith. If this law passes, there are possible child find implications. Seizure disorders are considered disabilities, and students may be eligible for Section 504 plans or IEPs. It is recommended that districts keep special education teams in the loop when plans are developed so that districts may consider whether to offer evaluations that fulfill child find obligations.

Auxiliary Services Funds
The governor’s budget authorizes a newly chartered nonpublic school, within ten days of receiving its charter, to elect to receive auxiliary services funds directly. The Senate Finance Committee also inserted language into the bill that prohibits a district from denying a nonpublic school’s request for personnel to provide auxiliary services who are properly licensed.

Additional changes are expected in future iterations of the budget bill before a final version is passed. In the meantime, school districts should reach out to area legislators and share any concerns they have about the proposed language. Pam Leist and Hollie Reedy will review the final budget bill in detail at the Administrator’s Academy on July 13, 2023. Click here to register for the webinar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CTC Corner: Accessibility of Online Services and Programs Focus of Enforcement by DOJ andOCR

CTC Corner: Accessibility of Online Services and Programs Focus of Enforcement by DOJ andOCR

by | Jun 20, 2023 | General, Legislation, School Management

On May 19, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights issued a joint Dear Colleague letter (“Letter”) reminding postsecondary institutions of their obligations to ensure that the online services, programs, and activities provided by such institutions are accessible to individuals with disabilities.

The Departments’ focus in in this Letter pointedly refers to two federal laws (the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act)that require postsecondary institutions (and K-12 entities) to provide equal opportunities to people with disabilities in all of their operations, including equal opportunities to participate in and benefit from online services, programs and activities. Both laws require postsecondary (and K-12) institutions ensure the accessibility of public-facing websites, learning management systems, password-protected student-facing content, mass email blasts, online programming, etc. The key, according to the Letter, is to remove digital barriers and provide access to online services, programming, and content, etc.

Digital accessibility-and enforcement- is an ongoing focus for the Departments in addressing issues related to institutions failing to achieve those goals. It highlights a consent decree in which a postsecondary institution in California was required to make all public online content on its website and other online platforms accessible to people with disabilities, including videos and podcasts on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and third-party platforms. The consent decree required the institution to designate a “web accessibility coordinator”, accessibility testing of online content, and independent auditing to evaluate whether content provided to students and the public was accessible.

In May 2022, the Office for Civil Rights engaged in over 100 compliance reviews concerning digital accessibility, which included education from K-12 through postsecondary education. During the same time period, the Justice Department also issued guidance involving web access for individuals with disabilities, showing how districts can make sure their websites and services are accessible to people with disabilities as required by the ADA. This guidance may be accessed here.

While this Letter does not address K-12 educational institutions, it does serve as a useful reminder to both K-12 and also those institutions providing both levels of education that educational technology accessibility has been and will continue to be a focus for the Departments in ensuring equal access. Districts should also be watching for the Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for amendments to Section 504 regulations that was mentioned in this Letter.

What does this mean for your District?
The Departments are laser focused on this topic. As bluntly stated in this guidance: “[o]nline accessibility for people with disabilities cannot be an afterthought.” Districts should conduct a review of the accessibility of online programming, services, activities, etc. provided to ensure that these essential services are accessible to students with disabilities. Internal audits of online programs and services to ensure educational technology is accessible: if barriers are discovered, steps can be taken and documented to ensure these programs are accessible going forward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plan For Payment In Lieu of Transportation

Plan For Payment In Lieu of Transportation

by | May 22, 2023 | General, Legislation, School Management

Successful transportation programs have had to adjust their timelines for declaring transportation impractical and offering payment in lieu of transportation (PILOT) due to new statutory deadlines and processes enacted in 2021. Here are some reminders about those deadlines and practical tips on preparing for timely and effective PILOT determinations. A cost-efficient and legally compliant transportation program is a key component of district operations, especially with financial penalties for noncompliance.

Route Plans
Have the nonpublic and community schools in your district declared their start and end times by April 1? That’s a new deadline. If they have done so, the district’s obligation is to develop a transportation plan for those students in 60 days; i.e., June 1. This is much sooner than districts usually do routing.

If those schools have not yet done so, it is to a district’s benefit, as it plans routes for next year, to request that information, along with student rider names and addresses. Once provided, the district must attempt to respond with the transportation plan by August 1. It is in the district’s interest to get this information quickly so that routing can incorporate these students.

Impracticality Determinations
Districts must determine impracticality of transportation 30 days before school begins. This means most families must be notified by mid-July. Determining whether the costs of transportation for nonpublic or community school students are disproportionate must be made on a case-by-case basis. Districts must also consider the other factors for this determination outlined in R.C. 3327.02. Researching each factor and documenting the results will protect the district.

The Superintendent may make the determination after considering all the statutory factors, with the Board approving the same at its next scheduled Board meeting. A letter detailing the reasons supporting the determination of impracticality must be sent to the parents, the State Board, and the community/nonpublic school.

PILOT
The Board may then offer payment in lieu of transportation (PILOT) to the parents by sending them the resolution, the reasons transportation was declared impractical, notice that the parent may accept or reject the offer and request mediation with ODE, and a contract for the parents to sign if they accept.

Attention to ensuring this process is well underway now is time well spent, with the goal of being ready to make decisions in July. Failure to do so risks missing deadlines, which could result in transporting students the entire year.

Values for payment in lieu of transportation for 2023-24 already have been announced by ODE- a minimum amount of $596.43 and maximum of $1,192.87.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Career Tech Corner: Governor DeWine and the Ohio House Prioritize Career Technical Centers in Ohio Budget

Career Tech Corner: Governor DeWine and the Ohio House Prioritize Career Technical Centers in Ohio Budget

by | May 22, 2023 | General, Legislation, School Management

In the proposed budget awaiting Senate approval for the upcoming fiscal year, the Ohio House followed Governor Mike DeWine’s lead and made career technical centers a priority. H.B. 33 which passed the Ohio House on April 26, 2023, includes a $100 million appropriation to support career technical programs. H.B. 33 also includes a one-time appropriation of $200 million for construction projects that establish or expand career-technical education programs.

DeWine has said that he believes career technical centers are essential to preparing Ohioans for the jobs of the future. “The jobs of tomorrow are going to require more skills and training,” DeWine said. “Career technical centers are the best way to make sure that Ohioans have the skills they need to get good-paying jobs.” Both the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Education Association support the increased funding.

The budget proposal is now being considered by the Ohio Senate. It is expected to be debated and voted on in the coming weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Want to Use Cooperative Purchasing Power for Construction Services? Call Your Representatives!

by | May 22, 2023 | Construction & Real Estate, General, Legislation, School Management

HB 145, 135th  General Assembly

There is legislation currently pending in the House to clarify that ORC 9.48 applies to construction services.  The attorneys here at Ennis Britton frequently hear from superintendents, treasurers, and business managers from around the State that they would like cooperative purchasing to be more accessible for some construction services.  This is an opportunity to do just that, so now is the time to contact your representatives to support this bill.

By way of background, cooperative purchasing is a procurement process whereby large purchasing power is leveraged to secure a wider range of vendors and better prices.  The contracts available through cooperative purchasing are publicly and competitively secured so the individual district taking advantage of an available contract does not have to go through competitive bidding itself.

In 1997, the General Assembly allowed cooperative purchasing for counties and townships. Then, in 2008, cooperative purchasing was expanded to all political subdivisions of the State, including school districts through section 9.48 of the Ohio Revised Code.

9.48 provides that a school district may acquire equipment, materials, supplies, or services through cooperative (joint) purchasing programs operated by any state or national association of political subdivisions.

Unfortunately, The Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion in 2019 that concluded that political subdivisions could not use cooperative purchasing pursuant to Section 9.48 in order to procure construction services because the statute does not use that term. “If the legislature intended to include “construction services” in R.C. 9.48, it could have used language to do so. R.C. 9.48, however, does not contain the terms “construction” or “construction services.” Consequently, we conclude that the General Assembly did not intend to include construction or construction services among the list of items, which a political subdivision may secure under the purchasing authority described in R.C. 9.48.”

While it is true that an Attorney General opinion is not binding law, school districts are cautioned against using this method or procurement to secure construction services. In the absence of any other interpretation, an auditor or grant coordinator could determine that cooperative purchasing under 9.48 is not a valid method of procurement for construction services using this opinion as support.

This bill would clarify that “services” include “construction services.” This change would grant school districts and other political subdivisions more options, flexibility, and control over their purchasing decisions. The Bill, introduced by representatives Thomas Hall and Brian Lampton, was referred to the State and Local Government Committee on April 28, 2023.

What does this mean for your district?

While caution is warranted about RC 9.48, there are other methods through which cooperative purchasing may be used for improvements. If you have a project for which you are thinking of using cooperative purchasing, contact one of the attorneys at Ennis Britton to make sure you stay in compliance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court of Appeals Overrules Trial Court in Employee Termination Matter

Court of Appeals Overrules Trial Court in Employee Termination Matter

by | May 22, 2023 | General, Legislation, School Management, Student Education and Discipline

Matthews v. Springfield-Clark CTC Bd. of Edn., 2023-Ohio-1304.

Springfield Clark CTC terminated a custodial supervisor for a variety of reasons, including, going into his supervisor’s office and reviewing, copying, and removing documents, all of which were supported by video.  The employee had been the subject of prior discipline and had been placed on an improvement plan which was never started.

During the termination process, the employee was given a pre-disciplinary hearing where he was provided with details of all of the allegations.  He was also given an opportunity to provide evidence in his defense.  Following this meeting, the Superintendent recommended termination, and a hearing was held before the Board of Education from which a transcript was created.  The employee did not call any witnesses.   Following the hearing, the Board of Education terminated the employee.

The employee appealed to the Common Pleas Court which overruled the termination.  As the basis for this reversal, the trial court made several findings.  First, the trial court ruled that an employee had a “presumption of innocence” and that the process violated “fundamental fairness” citing that it was the employer’s burden of proving the misconduct.  In support, the trial court cited a passage from the letter from the Superintendent that stated “because the allegation of misconduct has not been disproven” and thus it is “determined to be an act of malfeasance”. 

The trial court also took issue with the fact that the employee’s supervisor did not testify at the hearing, denying the employee his fundamental right of cross-examination.

Lastly, the trial court gave little to no deference to the Board of Education’s findings and decision, despite the wealth of evidence introduced at the hearing regarding past discipline, the video evidence provided, the Superintendent’s testimony, and the lack of credible evidence in the employee’s defense.  Of note, the trial court stated that the Superintendent’s testimony was unreliable hearsay, despite accepting the employee’s introduction of unsupported hearsay testimony. The Board appealed the trial court’s decision.

The Court of Appeals found that all required due process was provided.  He was given a pre-disciplinary hearing where he was presented with all allegations against him.  He was given the chance to call witnesses and to be represented by an attorney.  The Court of Appeals further stated that the standard applied by the trial court of a presumption of innocence was in error, stating the only burden on an employer is to provide evidence sufficient to justify termination.  The trial court’s characterization of the language in the Superintendent’s letter was described as flawed reasoning.

Regarding the lack of testimony and ability to cross-examine, the Court of Appeals specifically stated that cross-examination is not an absolute requirement for due process.

As to the lack of deference, after reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals found the trial court gave no deference to the Board of Education’s credibility decisions and resolution of evidentiary conflicts, instead expressing the court’s view of what the discipline should have been.  Thus, the Court of Appeals found the trial court erred and reversed the decision.

What this means to your district:  It is absolutely pertinent that the appropriate process is followed.  In this instance, that adherence allowed the District to obtain a positive result even after receiving a decision from the trial court that relied on “flawed reasoning.”