DOCKET NO 030R101110 CHILD BNF PARENT § BEFORE THE

090321%20Updated%20CR%20Docket
11 ORDER DOCKET NO 201066 STATE OF MAINE PUBLIC
157R10487 DOCKET NO 157R10487 BETTY HANSHAW AND +

4 DOCKET NOS RM018000 AND ER022001000 UNITED STATES OF
59 DOCKET NO ER031102000 106 FERC ¶ 61179 UNITED
6 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [DOCKET NO

Proposal for Decision Shell


DOCKET NO. 030-R10-1110



CHILD b/n/f PARENT § BEFORE THE

§

§

V. § COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

§

FORT BEND §

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT § THE STATE OF TEXAS


DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

Statement of the Case

Petitioner, Child b/n/f Parent, appeals the action of Respondent, Fort Bend Independent School District, concerning her grievance. Christopher Maska is the Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Commissioner of Education. Petitioner appeared pro se. Respondent is represented by Richard A. Morris, Attorney at Law, Houston, Texas.

The Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposal for Decision recommending that Petitioner’s appeal be dismissed. Exceptions and replies were timely filed and considered.

Findings of Fact

After due consideration of the record and matters officially noticed, it is concluded that the following Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence and are the Findings of Fact that best support Respondent’s decision1.

  1. Petitioner’s Level IV grievance was heard by Respondent’s board on September 28, 2010. Petitioner was present at this board meeting. Respondent’s board voted at the September 28, 2010 board meeting to deny Petitioner’s grievance.

  2. On November 15, 2010, the Petition for Review in this case was filed.

  3. On December 30, 2010, Respondent filed its Affirmative Defenses, which asserted that the Petition for Review was untimely filed.

  4. By letter of January 7, 2011, a prehearing conference was set for January 25, 2011. Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses were set for hearing on that day.

  5. On January 25, 2011, the prehearing conference was held. Petitioner appeared pro se. Respondent was represented by counsel. Petitioner requested time to file a written response to Respondent’s jurisdictional claims.

  6. By Order of January 31, 2011, Petitioner was directed to file a written response to Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses on or before February 4, 2011.

  7. On February 14, 2011, Respondent filed an advisory notice pointing out that Petitioner had failed to file the written response to Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses as ordered.

  8. Petitioner has not fled a written response to Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses.

Discussion

Petitioner contends that Respondent has violated the school laws of this state. Respondent denies this and asserts that the Petition for Review was untimely filed.

Jurisdiction

A Petition for Review is required to be filed with the Commissioner within forty-five calendar days after the decision being complained about is communicated to a petitioner. 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 157.1049(a). In the present case, Petitioner was informed of the board’s decision on September 28, 2010. The forty-fifth calendar day from September 28, 2010 was November 12, 2010. However, Petition for Review was not filed until November 15, 2010. The Petition for Review was not timely filed in this case. Because of the untimely filing, the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over this case.


Conclusions of Law

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed, and the foregoing Findings of Fact, in my capacity as Administrative Law Judge, I make the following Conclusions of Law:

1. The Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to hear this cause under Texas Education Code section 7.057.

2. A Petition for Review is required to be filed with the Commissioner within forty-five calendar days after the decision being complained about is communicated to a petitioner. 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 157.1049(a).

3. Because the Petition for Review was not timely filed the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over this case.

4. This case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Order

After due consideration of the record, matters officially noticed and the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in my capacity as Administrative Law Judge, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Petitioner’s appeal be, and is hereby, dismissed.

SIGNED AND ISSUED this ______ day of ___________________, 2012.



__________________________________________

ROBERT SCOTT

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION


1 See 19 Tex. Admin. Code §157.1073(h); Bosworth v. East Central Independent School District, Docket No. 090-R1-803 (Comm’r Educ. 2003).

030-R10-1110 3


AFFIDAVIT 2 DOCKET NO 201600084 STATE OF MAINE PUBLIC
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO ERROR REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND ATTORNEY
BOARD OF LIQUOR LICENSE COMMISSIONERS FOR BALTIMORE CITY DOCKET


Tags: before, 030r101110, parent, docket, child