COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools
BSEA# 26-05261
RULING ON GUARDIAN AD LITEM’S REQUEST TO RECORD PREHEARING CONFERENCE
On December 9, 2025, Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) filed Notice Regarding Prehearing Conference & Request For Record (Request to Record Prehearing Conference), asserting that she will not participate in a prehearing conference unless it is formally recorded or stenographically transcribed, asserting that a verbatim record is necessary to prevent misstatements and preserve an accurate, reviewable record. She contends that the Hearing Officer’s recent ruling mis-framed key issues, particularly regarding the Springfield Public Schools’ use of the Student of Concern (SOC) process, alleged concealment of SOC information, and purported misrepresentations by Springfield Public Schools (Springfield or the District). She further argues that the District has a pattern of contradictory and misleading statements, making an unrecorded conference legally prejudicial. GAL maintains that a formal record is required to support anticipated civil rights complaints with MCAD and OCR and to satisfy due process, given the impact a prehearing conference may have on issue framing and hearing scope. Accordingly, she requests authorization for recording or transcription, and states she is otherwise prepared to proceed directly to a full evidentiary hearing.
On December 16, 2025, Springfield filed Opposition To Recording And Stenographer Of PreHearing Conference, opposing GAL’s request to record or stenographically transcribe the prehearing conference. Relying on a prior BSEA ruling, Springfield argues that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) Hearing Rules limit the right to a verbatim record to the due process hearing on the merits, not to prehearing procedures. Additionally, Springfield contends that recording the conference could implicate Student’s personal and confidential rights as he is a minor in the custody of the Department for Children and Families (DCF), and prehearing discussions may include non-educational, DCF-related information. Springfield further asserts that GAL lacks explicit authority to waive or consent to recording on Student’s behalf for purposes such as sharing the record with other agencies, and therefore Student should have the opportunity to consult with DCF or legal counsel before any recording is permitted.
On December 17, 2025, GAL filed Motion For Reconsideration/Clarification
And Response To District’s Opposition To Recording And Stenographer asserting, in part[1], that Springfield improperly invoked Student’s privacy and “DCF status” to oppose recording, despite the District’s own alleged violations of his rights. GAL reiterated that record preservation is necessary due to credibility and transparency concerns, including contradictory statements, withheld records, and disputed facts surrounding the SOC process. Recording is needed to ensure accuracy, prevent mischaracterization, and preserve evidence for anticipated MCAD and OCR proceedings. According to GAL, Springfield’s reliance on prior BSEA precedent is misplaced, as due process permits recording when fairness requires it. The District’s attempt to deny a right to a record while relying on off-record statements and challenging the GAL’s credibility further underscores the need for a record.
For the reasons articulated below, GAL’s Request to Record Prehearing Conference is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD:
- Prehearing Conferences
The IDEA and state special education laws are silent as to the convening of prehearing conferences following the filing of due process complaints. Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule IV(B), not every case will require a prehearing conference. If the issues are clear, a case may proceed directly to hearing.
Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule IV(D),
When one party or neither party requests a prehearing conference, a Hearing Officer shall determine whether a prehearing conference is necessary.
If the Hearing Officer determines that a prehearing conference is necessary, the conference may be scheduled, but shall not delay the hearing date.
If neither party requests a prehearing conference, the Hearing Officer may not unilaterally convert a hearing into a prehearing conference.”[2]
Hearing Rule IV(C) provides that upon the joint request of the parties, a Hearing Officer shall conduct such a prehearing conference once the parties have either completed or waived the resolution session.[3]
A prehearing conference may address a host of topics, including, but not limited to clarification of issues, remedies, identification of areas of agreement and disagreement, discovery, and settlement.[4]
- Recording of Proceedings at the BSEA
Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.512 (a) (4) and (5), any party to a due process hearing may obtain a written or, at the option of the parents, electronic verbatim record of the hearing and of fact and decisions. As such, all BSEA due process hearings are recorded. [5]
Regarding recording of non-hearing proceedings at the BSEA, in In Re: Isa (Ruling On Parents’ Request To Record All Conference Calls And Meetings), BSEA # 25-00461 (2024), Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach found that “the information discussed during Conference Calls and [Prehearing] Conferences is not part of the record of a due process proceeding. Further, [and] there is no legal requirement for a verbatim record to be made of either type of proceeding.”[6] She explained that should “the parties prefer not to participate in unrecorded Conference Calls and/or Prehearing Conferences, the parties may proceed directly to Hearing.” On the other hand, if the parties agree to participate in an unrecorded Prehearing Conference, “[t]o the extent anything discussed by the Parties during [the] [Prehearing] Conference is sought by either Party to be made part of the record in this matter, that party should submit the request in writing and a written Ruling will be issued. Alternatively, the request will be further discussed verbally on the record during the stenographically recorded Hearing on the merits.”[7]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARD:
Unlike BSEA hearings, which IDEA expressly requires to be recorded, the IDEA is silent regarding prehearing conferences and imposes no obligation to record them if they occur. Accordingly, here, the prehearing conference will not be recorded. A prehearing conference is a voluntary, informal, and confidential proceeding. Matters discussed during the conference may not be shared beyond the participants and are not considered by the Hearing Officer in deciding the case on the merits. Any information a party wishes the Hearing Officer to consider must be formally presented at the hearing, where it is subject to objection and cross-examination.
ORDER:
GAL’s Request to Record Prehearing Conference is DENIED.
Within 24 hours of the issuance of this Ruling, the parties will inform the Hearing Officer whether they wish to proceed with an unrecorded prehearing conference and if so, their availability. If either party declines to participate, the matter will proceed to hearing on January 2, 2026 in accordance with my prior Order.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: December 18, 2025
[1] GAL’s request for reconsideration is not addressed in this Ruling.
[2] 801 CMR 1.01(10)(a) states that
“The Presiding Officer may initiate or upon the application of any Party, may call upon the Parties to appear for a conference to consider;
1. the simplification or clarification of the issues;
2. the possibility of obtaining stipulations, admissions, agreements on matters already
of record, or similar agreements which will reduce or eliminate the need of proof;
3. the limitation of the number of expert witnesses, or avoidance of cumulative
evidence, if the case is to be heard;
4. the possibility of an agreement disposing of any or all issues in dispute; and
5. such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the Adjudicatory Proceeding.
Those matters agreed upon by the Parties shall be reduced to writing and signed by them, and the signed writing shall constitute a part of the record. The scheduling of a [prehearing] conference shall be according to Agency rule or, in the absence of rules, solely within the discretion of the Presiding Officer.”
[3] BSEA Hearing Rule IV(C).
[4] BSEA Hearing Rule IV(B).
[5] 801 CMR 1.01(10)(i)(1) also provides, in part, that “the testimony and argument at the hearing shall be recorded either stenographically or by Electronic Medium.
[6] In Re: Isa (Ruling On Parents’ Request To Record All Conference Calls And Meetings), BSEA # 25-00461 (Reichbach, 2024).
[7] Id.